https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Peter Fairbrother]

Francis Davey wrote:
> 2012/6/18 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>:
>> But if they are only looking for ("secondary") traffic data, then they can
>> paw through all the entire nation's web traffic without it being
>> interception, as defined in RIPA 2(5).
> 
> Yes. That sounds exactly right to me. Provided its traffic data they
> are after then a notice under an authorisation can obtain it - though
> the retention is almost certainly going to be under clause 1 rather
> than under a notice.

Why?

If retaining the data is done in order to subsequently find traffic data 
in it, ie it is 2(5) conduct and is not interception, it doesn't need 
any justification in law to make it lawful - it already is lawful.


2(5)(a) "any conduct .."


(ianal, and maybe "lawful" isn't the right word - but what I meant is it 
would not be illegal under RIPA, the Draft Comms Bill, the DPA if done 
right, or anything else I know of)


-- Peter F

(more to follow, have to do a lot of work on the draft first tho', I'm 
falling behind)