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

[Andrew Cormack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 26 July 2012 06:32
> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: non-interception (was RE: sorry, but ...)
> 
> 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.

Agreed.

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

IIRC the law says "identifies, or purports to identify, the location" ;-)

Andrew

> --
> Roland Perry