4 ms·

Would you care to expand on exactly why you perceive that to be an inaccurate description?

• DanBC 7y ago
  In RIPA "Communications data" is explicitly not the content of the messages, it's the meta-data. The Register have a good story if they focus on that access to metadata -- I don't think organisations should have access to meta-data without justification. But they haven't done that, they've said "rifling through your emails" and the implication (see other comments in this thread) is that this means access to the content of the email. That's untrue, it's misleading, and it's yet another example of piss-poor quality reporting from the Register derailing a thread by generating very many comments that miss the point.
  • kwhitefoot 7y ago
    I don't want people reading the metadata either. And what is the definition of metadata? Is it just email addresses and dates or is the subject line included? Does it include any data extracted from email such as the names of other people or links to web sites? Does it just have web server IP addresses or the URLs and if the URLs does it have referrers as well. Exactly where is the line drawn? And yes El Reg is scare mongering as usual, but at least they stirred up some debate.
• 8957a7e865c41c 7y ago
  It conflates several legitimate issues pertaining to different agencies, their relative powers under the act. It also wilfully conflates different powers. Not to say there isn't a large amount of discussion to be had around it, but if you got all your info from an el-reg article, you would be ill-equipped to have that discussion.