Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[James Firth]

Ian Batten wrote:

> Under the new situation, you can put up a hooky DPI solution, claim you
> didn't realise it constituted interception (the defence BT would use in
> court, were it to get to court, which it won't) and be at most £10K
> worse off.    Given actually doing due diligence would cost more than
> that (get in a lawyer, a network architect for a week and you've spent
> that already) it's a free pass.  Rather than finding out if something's
> actually going to transgress RIPA, you just close your eyes to the
> problem and plead ignorance if it goes wrong.   Why spend £20K when
> you're assured of only being fined £10K?

It wasn't clear to me reading the consultation paper whether it was £10k per
offence.  The situation to which you earlier referred I think involved up to
20,000 subscribers, so therefore the maximum possible fine would be £200m.

But I guess that's just wishful thinking on my part.

James Firth