Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[Roland Perry]

In article <GGmSXGWvbV2MFA7N at highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton 
<richard at highwayman.com> writes
>There is a brand new consultation from the Home Office which aims to fix
>the deficiencies in UK interception law that were identified as a result
>of the Phorm debacle...
>
>... viz: removing the defence of reasonably believing you have
>permission to intercept [modifying 3(1)]
>
>and giving the Interception of Communications Commissioner a new power
>to impose a civil penalty for intercepting without such permission [they
>think that maybe the police wouldn't be consistent -- and if BT broke
>the law again then there would be 52 parallel investigations, hmmm isn't
>this devolved so should be 47?]...

Too late to suggest they take a look at the doormat issues I suppose?

(ie when does an email become no longer in transmission, in any sense)

-- 
Roland Perry