Thank you for these answers.  I found them informative and have read the UK 
interpretation of the EU legislation 
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/859/contents/made).

It is not at all clear to me how useful the current retention policy can be to 
the British government and its various organs.  If it is not obligatory for 
ISPs to record URLs nor e-mail headers (to, from, subject) then it's hard for 
me to see what the benefits are.  If my ISP (assuming it is one of the 90% that 
has been ordered to retain records) knows that on Tuesday 24 December at 19:05 
I connected to IP 11.22.33.44 then what is the big deal (unless that IP on its 
own represents something suspicious / nasty / illegal)?  How many VPS' have 
their own unique IP these days anyway?  If I e-mail my friend Billy to chat 
about the naughty website I've just seen then whether our correspondence occurs 
by webmail or SMTP doesn't seem to matter as the header information is 
apparently not retained (and "user ID" does not mean e-mail address).

I'm not sure how Paragraph 12 (2) can be adhered to as it states that in terms 
of the detination of a communication, "In the case of internet e-mail or 
internet telephony, the name and address of the subscriber or registered user 
and the user ID of the intended recipient of the communication."  How would 
they known the user ID of the recipient if user ID is not the same as e-mail 
address?

The other issue is whether ISPs record URLs and/or SMTP/POP/IMAP for their own 
purposes rather than because they are ordered to do so.  Does this possibility 
seem likely?  

Finally, has their been any UK cases where the UK implementation of 2006/24/EC 
has actually led to a successful or unsuccessful criminal prosecution?

Thanks again.

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 12/23/13, Adrian Kennard <[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] EU Data Retention - Some Questions.
 To: "Open Rights Group open discussion list" 
<[email protected]>
 Date: Monday, December 23, 2013, 10:00 AM
 
 On 23/12/2013 17:24, Bobby Brewster
 wrote:
 > Hello,
 > 
 > I have read the "DIRECTIVE 2006/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
 PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
 > of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or
 processed in connection with the provision of publicly
 > available electronic communications services or of
 public communications networks and amending
 > Directive 2002/58/EC" 
 > (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF)
 and have a few questions.
 > 
 > I want to focus on the way that the implementation
 occurs.  I realise that everyone is talking about the
 proposed Communications Data Bill and DPI but I first wished
 to look at what the current situation is rather than what
 will hopefully not happen.  
 
 IANAL, but I have concerns over the UK implementation of
 this.
 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/859/contents/made
 
 As an ISP, as per 10.(1): These Regulations do not apply to
 a public
 communications provider unless the provider is given a
 notice in writing
 by the Secretary of State in accordance with this
 regulation.
 
 We are not retaining data under the DPA at present as we
 have not
 received a notice.
 
 > One:
 > 
 > Let's say that I visit www.yahoo.com.  Then I
 visit mail.yahoo.com.  Then dating.yahoo.com.
 > 
 > What information is retained?  Is it yahoo.com or
 the subdomain (e.g. mail) and the domain (yahoo.com)?
 > 
 > What if I visit www.yahoo.com/name_of_page.html. 
 Am I right that only www.yahoo.com or yahoo.com is
 recorded?
 
 My understanding is that as an ISP we would not log any of
 this as we
 don't process the URL. This would be data logged on the web
 server
 itself, and typically a web server logs the whole URL. The
 regs talk of
 logging internet access, and email, not URLs.
 
 This may be different if the ISP operated a proxy I
 suppose.
 
 Does anyone know for sure? To log URLs, as a simple packet
 passing ISP,
 we would have to do deep packet inspection
 
 Section 3: These Regulations apply to communications data
 if, or to the
 extent that, the data are generated or processed in the
 United Kingdom
 by public communications providers in the process of
 supplying the
 communications services concerned.
 
 We don't generate or process the URL at all - indeed, our
 routers do not
 even load the URL in to the processor cache even, we just
 look at the
 headers for IP routing.
 
 So I think that means we do not have to log URLs at all.
 
 > Two:
 > 
 > What about the retention of e-mail metadata (from, to,
 subject, time, IP address)? If I go to mail.yahoo.com and
 send or receive an e-mail then I bypass POP, IMAP, and SMTP
 as I am using HTTP(S). How can e-mail metadata be retained
 if one is not using a client like Thunderbird or
 Outlook?  It appears to me that e-mail metadata
 retention can be defeated by using webmail. 
 
 Again, this would, AFAIK, only apply where we operate a mail
 server.
 Anyone that uses SMTP/IMAP/POP3/etc traversing our network
 would not be
 logged by us. Especially as those service can routinely be
 accessed
 encrypted.
 
 The requirements are in the schedule
 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/859/schedule/made
 
 But I would argue, for example, that an email address is not
 a "User
 ID", as we have email addresses for multiple users (group
 mailboxes),
 and multiple email addresses for a user, and email addresses
 that are
 not even valid. There is no actual requirement saying "log
 the email
 address" that I can see, just "User ID" which is defined:
 “user ID”
 means a unique identifier allocated to persons when they
 subscribe to or
 register with an internet access service or internet
 communications service.
 
 It does however ask for logging of the name and address
 associated with
 the IP address, but that only applies if we process/generate
 that data.
 At present we would have that, but we can easily set up
 email as a
 separate service (as a separate company) where we don't know
 the
 name/address for the IP, if ever asked to log data.
 Ironically I cannot
 see a requirement to actually log the IP, just the name and
 address
 associated with it - so if required to log, we would not log
 the IP.
 
 No requirement to log subject lines, size of email, etc.
 
 Also, I would agree, using yahoo, gmail, etc, should bypass
 any logging
 requirement at the ISP. We would certainly not log anything
 as (like
 URLs) we do not look at that part of the packet.
 
 > Third:
 > 
 > How do ISPs record the metadata?  For example, if
 I visit www.yahoo.com I would assume that, since this
 request goes via my ISP, that they record it. I don't
 suppose retention is done via DNS requests since, in many
 cases, one can use a third-party DNS provider e.g. Google.
 
 No requirement to log DNS as far as I can see.
 
 > Fourth:
 > 
 > How does the retention process work with
 non-ISPs?  For example, universities provide Internet
 access but they are not commercial ISPs although individuals
 are identified with a username and password.  The
 British Library provides free internet access.  So does
 Starbucks.  I can understand that coffee shops - even
 those that are part of massive chains like Starbucks - are
 clearly not ISPs, but what about university networks (to
 take one example).  If data retention only applies to
 ISPs then it strikes me that there are numerous ways to
 avoid it whether deliberately (going to Cafe Nero to browse
 the web) or as part of one's normal work day (using
 university network where you work or study).
 
 Only public providers are required to log anyway, and then
 subject to
 10(1) above. AFAIK a uni is not considered a public
 provider, as
 confirmed by ICO who consider email addresses not afforded
 protection of
 the PECR because they are not a public provider!
 
 I was wondering if I could make a "January Internet Ltd"
 which only
 offered services to persons born in January or companies
 registered in
 January. That means an arbitrary member of the public
 prepared to pay
 and agree terms could not take our service, they would have
 to meet the
 "January" requirement. Would "January Internet Ltd" be
 considered a
 "public provider". If not, that would be a good way around
 it.
 
 Obviously 11 other very similar companies would exist and
 buy access /
 etc from the same wholesale provider.
 
 Comments?
 
 
 -- 
 Director, Andrews & Arnold Ltd
 www.aa.net.uk
 
 -- 
 Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future:
 https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join
 
 To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected]
 or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss

-- 
Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected]
or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss

Reply via email to