non-interception (was RE: sorry, but ...)

[Roland Perry]

In article <61E52F3A5532BE43B0211254F13883AE09FA469C at EXC001>, Andrew 
Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> writes
>>Being able to get at the traffic data
>> aspects of a webmail service or other web-based communications system
>> without requiring a home secretary warrant seems the main purpose of
>> the legislation.
>
>I'm exploring the analogy that the new law would allow someone to sit in a pub, listen to all conversations, but only remember phrases similar
>to "I phoned Fred yesterday", "when did you phone Fred?"/"yesterday", etc. Does that work?

There could be some location (address) information too. Like 
overhearing:

Caller: Hello.
Recipient: Where are you.
Caller: I'm on the train.

Which might be two bits of content and one bit of traffic data.

Of course, if the caller is actually in the pub, he might still 
diplomatically have said "on the train"!
-- 
Roland Perry