<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
FYI - I attended (representing no-one) a meeting with home office
officials about IMP (as it then was) about 3 years ago, when I asked
"why is it called the Interception Modernisation Program if it's all
about communications data?". The only response was a sideways look
between officials and something about a legacy of terminology.<br>
<br>
About a year later in a speech Tarpaulin Neville-Jones asserted that
IMP would not be "alternating the boundaries between traffic and
content". When I put it to her that the boundaries were already
quite unclear (in RIPA), she just gave a mandarin smile.<br>
<br>
It seems clear that the RIPA definitions (almost unchanged in CDB)
must be able to be construed at different logical levels of the
stack (how else could they apply to e-mail entities and not just
datagram fields?)<br>
<br>
So logically either<br>
a) the people who dreamed up IMP didn't know that (i.e. engineers
not lawyers)<br>
b) the original intended scope <u>was</u> about interception<br>
c) it was recognized that getting at certain stack levels would
entail interception<br>
<br>
Anyone any info on why it was called IMP originally?<br>
<br>
Caspar<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19/06/12 12:17, Chris Edwards wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E1SgvVU-0006kp-1S@skipnote.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">enforcement beyond RIPA.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
Maybe there's a clue in the changes of name from "Intercept Modernisation
Programme" to "Communications Data Bill". They're deeming this stuff to
be comms data, and hence lawful.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>