Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34520811)

OK I have finished my analysis of RIPA you can read the updated PDF at http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm_paper.pdf

It is gonna be a long article by time it is finished, currently over 4000 words and I still haven't completed even 20% of the final article.

I would appreciate some feedback on the article so far if possible please.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34520819)

Alexander, unfortunately the link does not seem to work.

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34520819)

Alexander, unfortunately the link does not seem to work.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34520825)

Damn you must have been quick, the link was incorrect for about 25 seconds before I noticed and edited the post to correct it lol.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by amateria (Post 34520827)

Apologies if it has already been posted, but it is worth bearing in mind Art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

"Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Liberty comments, on its website: Article 8 guarantees respect for four things: a person’s private life, family life, home and correspondence.

Although the Convention does not in itself give rise to legal rights, as I understand it the courts have to interpret legislation (such as RIPA) so as to be consistent with the Human Rights Act (which gives effect to the Convention). So the courts should not interpret RIPA in such a way as to permit surveillance of people's electronic correspondence (including web traffic - posting to this forum is surely correspondence).

But I'm going to look at Alexander's article now, before I display my ignorance of (this part of) the law further,

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34520825)

Damn you must have been quick, the link was incorrect for about 25 seconds before I noticed and edited the post to correct it lol.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Barkotron (Post 34520838)

Just a quickie as I go - I'd amend "deliberately deceived" on page 4. It's perfectly possible that it's a case of left hand not knowing what the right is doing rather than a deliberate attempt to lie. From what I remember haven't they already stated that customer services didn't know about it? Personally I'd give them the benefit of the doubt over this one: having worked in tandem with a lot of large corporations, I'm firmly of the cock-up rather than conspiracy school.

Back to the paper...

Originally Posted by manxminx (Post 34520842)

Just a couple of small points Alexander, embedded links 11 and 17 (the FIPR ones) don't work, and you appear to have your spell check language set to US English.

As for the content, I'll leave it for more intelligent people than myself to comment!

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34520844)

I umm'd and arrr'd over that one myself. I decided to leave it as is simply because if it is a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing, they have still indirectly deceived their customers because they have deliberately not told customer services. Customer services should have been informed and someone must have made a decision not to inform them.

I will change it though if people think it is the better option.

Originally Posted by Moh Kohn (Post 34520633)

Hi Alex,

I was going through these last night and my reading of that section was that data volumes and/or data types could be examined - but not the data itself... This is implicitly linked with the traffic management section although, I suspect, it is therefore not limited to it, and so the inference i'm getting is that this is to enable to do packet type profiling and say "oh - you've received 823MB of x-binary data today" rather than examine the packet contents.

It does not seem to me to be allowing examination, storage or manipulation of the data sent between me and another party... however IANAL:)

Any knowledgable insight into the Ts & Cs would be well received by all here I suspect.

Cheers
Tim

Originally Posted by amateria (Post 34520847)

Hehehe you basically just covered the first section of the article lol.

So I did! I agree with the rest of the article, too!