|BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Tech Talk||
||<< Previous thread | Next thread >>|
|Home Office RIPA Consultation|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy, revrob
| felixcatuk |
Registered Member #95Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AM
| The Home Office are consulting on RIPA... its not been well publicised. |
I plan to respond... details of the consultation are here;
Deadline is currently 17 December apparently.
|Back to top|| |
Registered Member #180Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PM
|In all of this, what is a 'party' as far as 'consenting parties' are concerned? |
This new legislation should be drafted so as to completely knock on the head the idea that the owner and/or operator of a web site are not a 'party' with the same rights to give or withhold permission for interception as a user sitting at his/her browser.
But EU law recognises a distinction between a 'natural person' (i.e. liveware, an individual human being, what you or I would call a 'person') and a 'legal person', i.e. an entity with rights, such as a company, but not a human being as such.
So the question to be clarified is/are: (i) can a 'legal person' be a party for the purposes of this legislation, and does that legal person have the same rights as a natural person?
And if so (ii) can a website be a 'legal person' for those purposes, or must it be some entity behind the website?
And if not straightforwardly (i) or (ii), can it be agreed that there is a 'natural person' representing the website for the purposes of giving or withholding such consent, and if so, who can that natural person be? The webmaster, the owner of the website, or whom?
As there needs to be one person who speaks for the website so as to decide what is binding in the case of, say, the webmaster giving such permission and the owner repudiating it?
|Back to top|| |