https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Peter Fairbrother]

Francis Davey wrote:
> 2012/6/19 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>:
>>
>> You miss the point - when does it ever get used? When does an authorisation
>> need Judicial approval?
>>
>> Under the draft Act that is, rather than under some putative future SI.
>>
> 
> I don't follow your question at all. We are either talking at cross
> purposes or its very late and one or both of us are not making sense.
> I hoped my answer was clear.

I'll repeat my question then, Oh shill - are there any circumstances in 
the draft Act under which s.11 ever gets invoked?

Or is is just a bit of statute which looks good, but actually means 
nothing (unless perhaps later invoked by a SI, or other means)?



I have reached the end of s.14 in my first-pass analysis. Many pages of 
internal lookback/elsewhere lookystuff notes to follow.

It is NOT easy to understand an Act, or a draft Act.


One question, for Nicholas if you are here, or any lawyer - what is all 
this "see section" stuff about?

eg 9(8), 1(6) or search for "see" in the draft. haven't seen that before.


Completely OT, Oh Scaly One, just for your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGsSKJao3oI

-- Peter



> 
>>>> And notices can only be served on telecommunications operators? 9(3)(d)?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I see the confusion. Who else would you be serving a
>>> clause 9 notice on?
>>
>> I have rather arbitrarily decided that for the rest of today you are to be
>> considered a shill and dupe of the HO.
> 
> That is a bit (quite a bit) rude and I have no idea why you should say
> that. It is not as if I am in any way trying to support the bill (I've
> not expressed much of a view, but I hope that fact that I think it is
> generally a bad thing came over fairly clearly in what I have
> written).
> 
> I don't work for the government. I suspect the Home Office consider me
> a nuisance rather than a serious trouble-maker, but maybe I'll
> graduate to that in time. I'm a supporter of, and work very hard for,
> the Open Rights Group who really aren't behind this at all.
> 
> I am going to assume that you are tired and did not really mean to be rude.
> 
>> Mostly because it's easier to do than answering your question - which does
>> have an answer, or did when I posted the above  -  but I can't remember the
>> answer anymore.
>>
> 
> You wrote a, not particularly, coherent email in which you expressed
> very strongly negative views about the drafting of the bill in which
> you asked some questions. One of them appeared to indicate you were
> baffled as to why a clause 9 notice should be served on
> telecommunications operators. I could not (still cannot) see why you
> are baffled. It is entirely consistent with the internal logic of the
> bill that they should be.
> 
>> And sans "explanatory notes", which I have not read. They have no legal
>> effect.
> 
> Not strictly true, but I generally prefer to read bills without
> explanatory notes because I want to work out what it says not what the
> government think it says. I was annoyed that the draft bill from the
> government came with the notes interspersed when it would be much
> easier if they were not. Hence my being pleased that ORG have produced
> a clearer to read version (linked to from my blogpost).
> 
> Having said that, I do urge that *after* reading the bill, you to have
> a look at what the notes say, particularly about the "filtering
> provisions". While the notes won't change the meaning of the bill,
> they do give an insight into what the government are thinking. The
> filtering provisions are light on detail so it is worth a look.
> 
> One of the difficulties with a bill like this is that it makes too
> many things possible. Governments often only think about what they
> intend to do, but in deciding whether legislation is a good idea you
> have to consider what a government could do with it, which is rather
> different.
>