What is a "communication" (was Re: sorry, but ...

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 07/08/12 16:39, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:24:06 +0100, Caspar Bowden (travelling)
> <tharg at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>> How do we extend that theory to the situation where there are many
>>> receivers in many countries,
>>
>> In ***theory***, it should be that if all the recipients are inside
>> the UK, then it's internal, but if at least one intended recipient is
>> outside UK, then its external, but...
>
> I would have expected exactly the opposite.
>
> If the message is from Alice (known to be in the UK, and easily shown to
> be such) via Facebook to Bob (who happens to be in the UK) and Others
> (outside the UK, and probably a bunch of villains) then if "they"
> intercept the message on its way to Facebook without warrant, they have
> intercepted a message from Alice to Bob, which is not allowed. End of
> story AFAICS.
>
> If "they" imagine that they are intecepting messages from Alice to the
> villains, they have neverthelsss intercepted Alice to Bob (because the
> same message is sent to all of them). They can't pretend they have read
> the body of the message to the villains but carefully omitted to read
> the message to Bob, unless they are wearing glasses with some very
> peculiar filters in them indeed.
>
> There is an onus on "them" not to break the law - how they avoid that is
> their problem but, in this case the technology is definitely against them.
>

RIPA S.5(6): The conduct authorised by an interception warrant shall be 
taken to include—

(a) all such conduct (including the interception of communications not 
identified by the warrant) as it is necessary to undertake in order to 
do what is expressly authorised or required by the warrant;


-- Peter Fairbrother