Quote:
Originally Posted by madslug
The Home Office advice does not say that you can imply consent of ALL web site operators for interception. ...
Read para.7 (a closed system - not a DPI provided data stream) and consider the conclusion in para.8
|
Hi Madslug, I just can't read it the same way
I've tried, very hard.
The HO document deals with at least two scenarios.
Para 6 talks about interception in general.
Para 10 talks about use of a proxy.
Para 11 deals with a specific scenario whereby a script is downloaded near simultaneously. How that would work without intercepting the page to insert the Javascript is a different question.. PageSense injected Javascript into the page by interception.
Dealing with the proxy scenario in para 10...
Where the proxy scenario completely falls apart is para 13. To determine if interception is lawful, it quotes section 3(1) of RIPA saying "person has reasonable grounds for believing is
both a) a communication sent by a person who has consented to the interception;
and b) a communication the intended recipient of which has so consented".
When you consider how damaging interception of communication is versus simply making unauthorised copies of content... And how the content is used by an advertiser to market competitive services without Copyright licence... HO couldn't seriously assume a web site owner would consent.
Yet para 15 goes on to state a "It made be argued that section 3(1)(b) is satisfied in such a case because the host or publisher who makes a page available for download from a server impliedly consents to those pages being downloaded".
Making content available
to people who request it is not the same as authorising interception. Phorm doesn't request content, it copies it on the fly, before it has reached its intended recipient.
Para 21 concludes the insanity by suggesting "The implied consent of a web page host (as indicated in para 15 above) may stand in the absence of any specific express consent".
That's a complete inversion of RIPA and Copyright. If you accept the differentiation between making content available (where available would necessitate an identifiable request), and tolerating interception of communication... Para 21 of the HO document licences interception simply because you publish a document online.
I reckon they have got that completely wrong. And they should withdraw that advice immediately. Because I'm certain the HO won't like the consequences that will necessarily follow.