On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 07:04 PM, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> I would imagine that most people simply have no idea of what this means
> because they don't understand anything about how the internet works,
> have no idea of any community spirit and simply don't understand the
> link that the RIP bill has to human rights
I have a sneaking suspicion that may be about to change...
> I don't follow: why would the success of the internet (and in what way
> do you mean success?) create the need for the RIP bill. The RIP bill
> does not in any way may the internet a government controlled system.
Not in its' entirety, no, but it makes it a lot harder to operate than
it is now. What it means for us as punters is that pretty much anyone
has the right (I recommend that you acquaint yourself with the list of
newly-appointed 'investigatory bodies' which makes a complete mockery of
the word Regulation. It makes for interesting reading...) to view:
your email transactions (see below)
sites you have visitied
mobile phone *locations* to within 100 metres (whoa, Enemy of the State
here we come)
and so on.
> They would probably have to spend the duration of a government in order
> to construct anything that is going to be able to hold this amount of
> data.
Matthew, the whole point is that they won't have to - the onus will be
on the ISP, telco, hosting provider, whatever. Absolutely nothing to do
with the government. And if, when presented with a RIP S22 request (ha!)
you have no logs but they have proof that the telecommunication (email,
web page, phone call) traversed your system then you in trouble.
> I would think that if the MP really understood what you were telling
> them, or had some kind of first hand knowledge of some of the monuments
> of computing that the internet has allowed to develope then the MP would
> probably have had a greater interest in representing your views.
No they wouldn't. Most MPs never dare - unless there really is a
significant public groundswell - turn against the Whip. Unfortunately,
politics is a very unforgiving game - and one which very few people make
their beliefs, views or constituent's beliefs/views stick.
> I realise that the RIP is only on email headers
That's just so wrong. It covers almost every form of "consumer"
electronic communication, bar Instant Messaging.
> Even if it is a private gateway?
If you are providing a service where (say) you are not using an ISP in
its' generic sense then yes, you would be liable for such data.
See why it hit the news this time round?
Graeme
-- maybe we should start a NottsPRIV group, instead :)-------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue 11 Jun 2002 - 19:31:50 BST