<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 11:35, Ian Batten wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7B7AC43C-E751-42EA-9BB0-7B1EA86669D7@batten.eu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:16, Nicholas Bohm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nbohm@ernest.net"><nbohm@ernest.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 17/06/2014 09:08, Ian Batten wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The GCHQ/NSA narrative on bulk interception appears to be that it's OK provided the data isn't
looked at by humans without a warrant. There seems to be an assumption that it's OK to data-mine
bulk data, but that before the data belonging to an individual is looked at by humans there has to be a warrant.
I think the first part of that argument has a fairly straightforward legal basis (whatever my personal view
might be on the morality of it). RIPA S.2(2) defines intercept to occur when content is made available
"to a PERSON other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication" (my emphasis).
I doubt a court would agree with the contention that software under the control of a person is equivalent to a person.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is inconsistent with section 16(2),
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That's an interesting point.
My reading is that section 16 is only engaged by "certificated warrants", S.8(4), and that appears
to exclude material relating to people located in the UK S.16(2)(a). </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. But my point is that "intercepted" is a defined term with one
meaning wherever it occurs; and that from the way it is used in s16
it is clear that its meaning there and elsewhere does not depend on
material having been processed after bulk collection.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7B7AC43C-E751-42EA-9BB0-7B1EA86669D7@batten.eu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But I confess to struggling
with the language ("falls within this subsection so far only as it is selected to be read, looked at or listened
to otherwise than according to a factor which" --- does the otherwise mean "other than as in the follow
sections" or is it attached to the "listened to"?)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It must mean "selected ... otherwise than ..." - I don't see that
"listened to ... otherwise than ..." can make any sense.<br>
<br>
Nicholas<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<style type="text/css">
A:link
{ text-decoration: none; color:#0000bb; }
A:visited
{ text-decoration: none; color:#990099; }
A:active
{ text-decoration: none; color:#bb0000; }
A:hover
{ text-decoration: underline; color:#bb0000; }
</style><span style="font-family: monospace;"><a
href="http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm">Contact
and PGP key here</a></span><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>