Data retention directive "invalid"
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Apr 11 13:12:15 BST 2014
In article <5347AC78.8080206 at zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother
<zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk> writes
>On 11/04/14 07:52, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In article <534705C6.6040306 at zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother
>> <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk> writes
>>> If an ISP has agreements with the Home Office regarding distributing
>>> data to Police forces etc, I don't think these can be enforced.
>> Data disclosure is disjoint from retention, and is covered by RIPA. It's
>> not an agreement, but an obligation (on receipt of the necessary
>Ah, I wasn't clear - what I meant was if an ISP deletes its data then
>any contracts made under the CoP regarding data distribution (eg re
>SPOCs, payments etc) would be unenforcable, as the ends of the contract
>necessarily involve unlawfulness (ie retaining the data).
Describing as either "distribution" or a "contract" is wrong.
>>> Certainly they cannot be enforced if the CoP is invalid, and probably
>>> not otherwise if it is only partly disproportionate, which it almost
>>> certainly is.
>> I don't think disclosure is conditional on how you happened to have the
>> data. If the data exists, it can be required to be disclosed.
>There is no penalty under RIPA for failing to distribute the data if
>they don't have it.
It's not distribution, it's access-on-demand.
>And, I don't think they have to distribute the data under RIPA anyway -
>it would be disproportionate.
You've made up this "distribution" thing.
More information about the ukcrypto