What is a "communication"

[Andrew Cormack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Andrew Cormack
> Sent: 14 August 2012 12:43
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Subject: RE: What is a "communication"
> 
> Offline at the moment so can't check, but IIRC the "TwitterJoke"
> judgment did conclude that a tweet on its way from the author to the
> Twitter site *was* a communication for Communications Act purposes
> (therefore capable of being malicious, though this particular one
> wasn't).

Just checked. See para 25 of http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/404552/chambers-v-dpp.pdf

> Can't think why the same wouldn't apply to an FTP transfer...
> 
> HTH
> Andrew
> 
> --
> Andrew Cormack
> Chief Regulatory Adviser, Janet
> t: +44 1235 822302
> b: https://community.ja.net/blogs/regulatory-developments
> Janet, the UK's research and education network
> www.ja.net
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> > bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Peter Fairbrother
> > Sent: 14 August 2012 04:39
> > To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> > Subject: Re: What is a "communication"
> >
> > On 14/08/12 03:44, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> > > On 13/08/12 11:07, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> >
> > >>> Another question here, is traffic between me and mywebsiteserver
> a
> > >>> communication?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you sent a communication to your websiteserver and it
> returned
> > >> information of use to you. The identity of your websiteserver is
> > >> traffic data. The actual query and its response is not.
> > >
> > >
> > > You probably can't have it both ways - my webserver is not a
> person.
> > Or
> > > is it?
> >
> > Missed a bit here - I was thinking of me placing something on the
> 'net
> > by ftp'ing it to mywebserver, and whether that ftp is a communication
> > in
> > RIPA terms, and therefore interceptable.
> >
> > mywebsever is (allegedly) at an ISP who do not look at the content
> > therein, but for the sake of argument suppose it is a physical server
> > in
> > in my London flat (I wish).
> >
> >
> > I think it may not be a communication, as it does not have an
> intended
> > recipient - except perhaps me, as the server operator, as opposed to
> > me,
> > as the sender?
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> >
> > but maybe ftp prolly cannot be intercepted because it is not a
> > communication, even if some b#*#*#*d sees it all.
> >
> >
> > -- Peter Fairbother
> >
>