<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/06/2014 09:08, Ian Batten wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9B56CEA2-C50E-43DC-B8AB-AD104CE5C41E@batten.eu.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
The GCHQ/NSA narrative on bulk interception appears to be that
it's OK provided the data isn't
<div>looked at by humans without a warrant. There seems to be an
assumption that it's OK to data-mine</div>
<div>bulk data, but that before the data belonging to an
individual is looked at by humans there has to be a warrant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the first part of that argument has a fairly
straightforward legal basis (whatever my personal view</div>
<div>might be on the morality of it). RIPA S.2(2) defines
intercept to occur when content is made available</div>
<div>"<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size:
12px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">to a PERSON
other than the sender or intended </span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">recipient of the
communication" (my emphasis). </span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size:
12px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">I doubt a court
would agree with the contention that software under </span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">the control of a
person is equivalent to a person.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is inconsistent with section 16(2), which draws a sharp
distinction between what has been intercepted and what has been "<span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica,
verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: justify;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
display: inline !important; float: none; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">read, looked at or listened to."</span> It
follows that interception occurs when an individual is able to get
at the material in question, whether or not he or she has yet taken
advantage of that ability. The fact that such an ability may depend
on the use of software seems to me as utterly irrelevant as that it
might depend on loudspeakers or a magnifying glass.<br>
<br>
So although I agree with your argument below, I don't think its
starting point is ever reached.<br>
<br>
Nicholas<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<span style="font-family: monospace;"><a
href="http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm">Contact
and PGP key here</a></span></div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9B56CEA2-C50E-43DC-B8AB-AD104CE5C41E@batten.eu.org"
type="cite">
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><font face="arial, helvetica,
verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;">My interest is the legal theory which
allows them to look at the output from that chain. </span></font></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><font face="arial, helvetica,
verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><font face="arial, helvetica,
verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;">S.9(6)(c) is quite clear about the
period for which a new warrant is valid: "</span></font><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;">the period of three months beginning</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">with the day
of the warrant’s issue". So if you have a bulk data store,
and are relying on S.2(2) to permit you</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">to data-mine
it, why would a S.6 warrant give a person any authority to
look at the data? S.2(8) could be read</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">to outlaw the
storage of bulk data full stop ("</span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;">shall include any case in which any of the
contents of the communication, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">while being
transmitted, are diverted or recorded so as to be available to
a person subsequently.") but even taking</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">the most
favourable to the authorities reading of "so as to be
available", which only covers when the data is</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">actually made
available, it seems to outlaw "store it, then get a warrant
later". S.2(7) is about data at rest which the</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">subscriber
has access to, voicemail and inboxes and suchlike ("</span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;">storing it in a manner that enables the
intended</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">recipient to
collect it or otherwise to have access to it") but S.2(8)
doesn't appear to refer to subscriber storage,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">rather to
storage as part of the interception.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">So I think
that a narrow reading of S.2(8) outlaws storage without a
warrant and later extraction under warrant.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">But I can't
think of any reading of S.2(8) which permits you to store
data, search it automatically (under a reading</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">of S.2(2)
which permits non-human access), get a warrant on the basis of
the selectors that throws up, and</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">then read the
content under a S.6 warrant. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">So if GCHQ
are storing bulk data, analysing it, then applying for
warrants to access the content (as they</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">seem to be
admitting), I think it breaches RIPA S.1(1) because S.2(8)
explicitly forbids access to recorded</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">content.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br>
</span></div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>