https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Peter Fairbrother]

Francis Davey wrote:
> 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 

'tis a bit, and sorry for that - it relates to an earlier post or three 
where I got a bit frustrated trying to explain to you that looking at 
traffic - any traffic - in any context - is not interception if you are 
looking to find traffic data.

If I had thought that you were actually a shill, I'd have said so - I 
never meant to make that actual accusation, and afaics I didn't (please?).

I just thought that you should be treated as one, for the rest of today, 
mostly for your apparent willingness to follow the party line.

If that went too far then I apologise.

-- Peter Fairbrother








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.
>