James Firth | 4 Nov 10:49 2010
Picon

Policy, legislation and ethics in the cloud

I was invited to Google's London HQ.  The conversation centred around
politics, ethics, legislation and policy for a commercially available
computing fabric which transcends national borders.

I added information gleaned from my visit to a blog post I've been brewing.
It might be of interest for some on this list.

The elastic jurisdiction
http://www.slightlyrightofcentre.com/2010/11/elastic-jurisdiction.html

(Short URL: http://ejf.me/aZ )

"But in a domain where the fittest - and largest - survive, who's left
batting for the consumer? And importantly, who's funding the organisation
batting for the consumer?"

...

"Putting fear, terrorism and copyright controls aside, we are now firmly in
an era characterised by the fluidity of data, yet our laws still defer to
national boundaries."

...

"But I believe at least one company - Google - has developed a genuine cloud
computer.  Perhaps the world's first true globally-distributed
"gigacomputer" (my tagline).  A processing fabric acting to all intents and
purposes as a single computer would, but whose physical processing and
storage is genuinely abstracted from the programmer or end user, and
distributed around the world.  "
(Continue reading)

James Fidell | 4 Nov 15:48 2010
Picon

Re: Verfied by Visa finally gets outed

On 19/10/10 18:30, Paul Barnfather wrote:
>> Just like they've been saying since its launch.  Why they went for an
>> embedded (IFRAMEd) approach when world+dog could see this masked the SSL
>> certificate info from all but the most curious of visitors is still beyond
>> me.
>
> I notice they're now claiming that the "personal assurance message" is
> the approved way to ensure that VbV dialog box is genuine.

Coming to this thread late...

Some card issuers don't even appear to allow you to set the "personal
assurance message".  I did have once have a card that didn't have any
way to set it.  I assume the message was the same for all holders of
that card.

Another thing that irritates about VbV is that some card issuers, whilst
being happy to issue a joint card for my wife, will not allow her to
have a separate VbV password yet insist that I must not disclose my own
password to anyone.  When I asked one issuer about this they said that
I would either have to enter the password for her whenever she wanted to
buy anything online (not particularly helpful if we're not in the same
place) or she would not be able to use the card for online purchases.

James

Richard Clayton | 9 Nov 15:13 2010

Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

There is a brand new consultation from the Home Office which aims to fix
the deficiencies in UK interception law that were identified as a result
of the Phorm debacle...

... viz: removing the defence of reasonably believing you have
permission to intercept [modifying 3(1)]

and giving the Interception of Communications Commissioner a new power
to impose a civil penalty for intercepting without such permission [they
think that maybe the police wouldn't be consistent -- and if BT broke
the law again then there would be 52 parallel investigations, hmmm isn't
this devolved so should be 47?]...

The consultation only runs to the 7th December (no explanation is
included as to why the normal timescale guidelines are not being adhered
to -- which I wildly speculate is to beat the timetable for being
dragged into court in Luxembourg)

The consultation isn't yet on any of the myriad Home Office websites...
doubtless cuts in webmasters are to blame for that, and it will turn up
real soon now! (hello Simon!)

--

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
Peter Fairbrother | 10 Nov 00:15 2010
Picon

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

Richard Clayton wrote:
> There is a brand new consultation from the Home Office which aims to fix
> the deficiencies in UK interception law that were identified as a result
> of the Phorm debacle...
> 
> ... viz: removing the defence of reasonably believing you have
> permission to intercept [modifying 3(1)]

I don't think that was or is the real deficiency in interception law - 
the problem is more in a lack of enforcement. However as they will 
change 3(1) no matter what the consultation says (in my experience when 
they put out a consultation they have already mostly decided what they 
are going to do), I first ask whether the proposed change makes it a 
strict liability offence?

In criminal law there is the element of "mens rea", the guilty mind, and 
in general someone with a reasonable belief that they are not doing 
something unlawful or illegal is not guilty of a crime.

They added the bit about reasonable belief to 3(1) for some reason - 
does anyone know why? Is is about strict liability or something else?

If the change doesn't make it a strict liability offence (and I wouldn't 
like to see that) but merely makes it much more the responsibility of 
the interceptor to ensure that they have permission to intercept (while 
the very occasional innocent failure would be covered by mens rea), that 
would be an acceptable change.

Even better would be a requirement (as above) on the interceptor to 
ensure he has express permission to intercept, not just implicit 
(Continue reading)

Roland Perry | 9 Nov 22:21 2010

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

In article <GGmSXGWvbV2MFA7N@...>, Richard Clayton 
<richard@...> writes
>There is a brand new consultation from the Home Office which aims to fix
>the deficiencies in UK interception law that were identified as a result
>of the Phorm debacle...
>
>... viz: removing the defence of reasonably believing you have
>permission to intercept [modifying 3(1)]
>
>and giving the Interception of Communications Commissioner a new power
>to impose a civil penalty for intercepting without such permission [they
>think that maybe the police wouldn't be consistent -- and if BT broke
>the law again then there would be 52 parallel investigations, hmmm isn't
>this devolved so should be 47?]...

Too late to suggest they take a look at the doormat issues I suppose?

(ie when does an email become no longer in transmission, in any sense)

--

-- 
Roland Perry

Francis Davey | 10 Nov 08:53 2010
Picon

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

On 9 November 2010 23:15, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think that was or is the real deficiency in interception law - the
> problem is more in a lack of enforcement. However as they will change 3(1)
> no matter what the consultation says (in my experience when they put out a
> consultation they have already mostly decided what they are going to do), I
> first ask whether the proposed change makes it a strict liability offence?

Not if section 1 (the substantive offence) remains the same, eg s1(1):

"(1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without
lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any
communication in the course of its transmission by means of—"

The phrase "intentionally" is the required mental state. The change to
3 would mean that absence of lawful authority under 3 would be a
strict element.

--

-- 
Francis Davey

Richard Clayton | 10 Nov 10:58 2010

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

In article <GGmSXGWvbV2MFA7N@...>, Richard Clayton
<richard@...> writes

>There is a brand new consultation from the Home Office which aims to fix
>the deficiencies in UK interception law that were identified as a result
>of the Phorm debacle...

[..]

>The consultation isn't yet on any of the myriad Home Office websites...
>doubtless cuts in webmasters are to blame for that, and it will turn up
>real soon now! (hello Simon!)

Now visible:

<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/ripa-effect-
lawful-intercep/ripa-amend-effect-lawful-incep>

--

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
Peter Fairbrother | 10 Nov 11:27 2010
Picon

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

Francis Davey wrote:
> On 9 November 2010 23:15, Peter Fairbrother
<zenadsl6186@...> wrote:
>> I don't think that was or is the real deficiency in interception law - the
>> problem is more in a lack of enforcement. However as they will change 3(1)
>> no matter what the consultation says (in my experience when they put out a
>> consultation they have already mostly decided what they are going to do), I
>> first ask whether the proposed change makes it a strict liability offence?
> 
> Not if section 1 (the substantive offence) remains the same, eg s1(1):
> 
> "(1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without
> lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any
> communication in the course of its transmission by means of—"
> 
> The phrase "intentionally" is the required mental state. 

I don't understand that.

Suppose the action was intentional in that the person making it knew it 
would be an interception, rather than a mistake which had the effect of 
intercepting, is that enough for the "intentional" bit?

And then if the person making the action had a good but mistaken reason 
to believe it was legal - is he then guilty?

> The change to
> 3 would mean that absence of lawful authority under 3 would be a
> strict element.

(Continue reading)

Ian Batten | 10 Nov 12:07 2010

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition


On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:58, Richard Clayton wrote:

> lawful-intercep/ripa-amend-effect-lawful-incep

While searching on the website to try to deal with the mangling of the URL (looks like Turnpike is line
folding on '-' a URL in text/plain, which my client then won't reassemble) I stumbled on this:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/released-information1/foi-archive-crime/12307_docs_used_prep_APPG_IMP/12307_1_docs_prep_APPG_IMP?view=Binary

Roland Perry | 10 Nov 12:41 2010

Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

In article <FFB75110-56F9-440F-9F24-FDBBD63BFD13@...>,
Ian 
Batten <igb@...> writes

>(looks like Turnpike is line folding on '-' a URL in text/plain, which my client then won't reassemble)

OT: It is, but that's white space and should be ignored. Plus the <> 
delimiters give the client a massive hint where the end of the url is to 
be found.
--

-- 
Roland Perry


Gmane