https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Francis Davey]

2012/6/19 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>:
>
>
> You miss the point - when does it ever get used? When does an authorisation
> need Judicial approval?
>
> Under the draft Act that is, rather than under some putative future SI.
>

I don't follow your question at all. We are either talking at cross
purposes or its very late and one or both of us are not making sense.
I hoped my answer was clear.

>
>>> And notices can only be served on telecommunications operators? 9(3)(d)?
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I see the confusion. Who else would you be serving a
>> clause 9 notice on?
>
>
> I have rather arbitrarily decided that for the rest of today you are to be
> considered a shill and dupe of the HO.

That is a bit (quite a bit) rude and I have no idea why you should say
that. It is not as if I am in any way trying to support the bill (I've
not expressed much of a view, but I hope that fact that I think it is
generally a bad thing came over fairly clearly in what I have
written).

I don't work for the government. I suspect the Home Office consider me
a nuisance rather than a serious trouble-maker, but maybe I'll
graduate to that in time. I'm a supporter of, and work very hard for,
the Open Rights Group who really aren't behind this at all.

I am going to assume that you are tired and did not really mean to be rude.

>
> Mostly because it's easier to do than answering your question - which does
> have an answer, or did when I posted the above  -  but I can't remember the
> answer anymore.
>

You wrote a, not particularly, coherent email in which you expressed
very strongly negative views about the drafting of the bill in which
you asked some questions. One of them appeared to indicate you were
baffled as to why a clause 9 notice should be served on
telecommunications operators. I could not (still cannot) see why you
are baffled. It is entirely consistent with the internal logic of the
bill that they should be.

>
> And sans "explanatory notes", which I have not read. They have no legal
> effect.

Not strictly true, but I generally prefer to read bills without
explanatory notes because I want to work out what it says not what the
government think it says. I was annoyed that the draft bill from the
government came with the notes interspersed when it would be much
easier if they were not. Hence my being pleased that ORG have produced
a clearer to read version (linked to from my blogpost).

Having said that, I do urge that *after* reading the bill, you to have
a look at what the notes say, particularly about the "filtering
provisions". While the notes won't change the meaning of the bill,
they do give an insight into what the government are thinking. The
filtering provisions are light on detail so it is worth a look.

One of the difficulties with a bill like this is that it makes too
many things possible. Governments often only think about what they
intend to do, but in deciding whether legislation is a good idea you
have to consider what a government could do with it, which is rather
different.

-- 
Francis Davey