3 ms·

The section regarding external communications starts on page 37. The same document seems to contradict this article's premise: (from p.41) "Despite the fact t

The section regarding external communications starts on page 37. The same document seems to contradict this article's premise: (from p.41) "Despite the fact that some UK to UK communications may be intercepted under section 8(4) warrants and that common uses of the internet by persons in the British Islands, such as a Google search, a Facebook post, or a "tweet" on Twitter, may entail the making of "external communications" for the purposes of Chapter I of RIPA, the section 8(4) regime as a whole is designed so as not to authorise the selection for examination of communications of this nature, except in the tightly constrained circumstances set out in section 16 of RIPA." Disclaimer: IANA-(British)-L

justincormack 12y ago
It goes on though to say that tweets are posted to a US platform, not an individual, so they all count as external. Only email from one person to another both in the UK is "internal" but they admit it will be collected anyway, but say they can't look at it.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  Well, yeah - with regards to it being an "external" communication, they say that on p.37 (as I said in my post). The document starts talking about the differences between internal and external communications on p.37 and how a tweet that isn't directed to another British citizen is considered an external communication because the server is in the US. They then continue by saying on p.41 that even though that tweet is an external communication, they still aren't authorized to intercept it unless it's "necessary" under section RIPA 5(6)(a) and the tweet also isn't authorized for "selection for examination" unless it meets other criteria under RIPA section 16. The article is focusing on the fact that the tweet is an external communication and neglecting to mention that there are still additional restrictions on collecting external communications. What Charles Farr is saying in that document is a far cry from the article's wording: "By defining the use of ‘platforms’ such as Facebook, Twitter and Google as ‘external communications’, British residents are being deprived of the essential safeguards that would otherwise be applied to their communications - simply because they are using services that are based outside the UK." (After skimming through RIPA, though, I will concede that UK laws can be very obtuse. Section 16 gave me a headache - but that's an entirely different issue than the external communication argument)

justincormack 12y ago

It goes on though to say that tweets are posted to a US platform, not an individual, so they all count as external. Only email from one person to another both in the UK is "internal" but they admit it will be collected anyway, but say they can't look at it.

csandreasen 12y ago
Well, yeah - with regards to it being an "external" communication, they say that on p.37 (as I said in my post). The document starts talking about the differences between internal and external communications on p.37 and how a tweet that isn't directed to another British citizen is considered an external communication because the server is in the US. They then continue by saying on p.41 that even though that tweet is an external communication, they still aren't authorized to intercept it unless it's "necessary" under section RIPA 5(6)(a) and the tweet also isn't authorized for "selection for examination" unless it meets other criteria under RIPA section 16. The article is focusing on the fact that the tweet is an external communication and neglecting to mention that there are still additional restrictions on collecting external communications. What Charles Farr is saying in that document is a far cry from the article's wording: "By defining the use of ‘platforms’ such as Facebook, Twitter and Google as ‘external communications’, British residents are being deprived of the essential safeguards that would otherwise be applied to their communications - simply because they are using services that are based outside the UK." (After skimming through RIPA, though, I will concede that UK laws can be very obtuse. Section 16 gave me a headache - but that's an entirely different issue than the external communication argument)