[amateria]

to change the subject, I posted this on BadPhorm in the Server Operators also need to act! thread:

"I suggest sending a registered letter to the registered office of the ISPs, giving notice that:

In accordance with sections 1 and 2 of RIPA

- you do not consent, either as sender or recipient, to any interception of any of your website traffic for any purpose whatsoever
- the fact that your website has been made available for download subject to its terms and conditions of use may not be construed as consent to any interception
- in particular, you do not consent to any interception, either as sender or receiver, of your website traffic, even if the interception were for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not you consented to such interception

Then there would be no argument (along the lines suggested by the Home Office) that by making your website available to internet users, you are impliedly consenting to interception by ISPs. Equally importantly, it would deprive the ISP of the defence (proposed by the Home Office) that the ISP "reasonably believed" consent had been given by virtue of the fact that the website was available for download by its users.

While you're at it, why not copy the letter to the Home Office, the ICO and the DPP.

I think from a legal perspective this would be pretty watertight. Notices on the website, which by definition may not be read by the ISP until after it has committed the interception, are necessary, but they may be much less effective than a written notice which has been signed for by the ISP's registered office. It would be very hard to evade criminal liability in the face of the admitted receipt of this type of notice."

---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Alexander, if it seems to fit, please feel free to use this wording in your paper.