I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 09:20:06 UTC+1, Dr Dave wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is based in Scotland).

Did the programme suggest it was legal? Seems improbable if neither party to the call had consented.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>, at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this
evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls
between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he
is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial jurisdiction
with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the perp isn't a
public authority and/or the tapping is on a private network (eg inside
a call centre) then it's usually the case that no crime has been
committed.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2 May 2023 at 22:55:45 BST, "Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is based
in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’ computers
which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

IIRC from something else I read somewhere, someone who knows how to work the system gets into the scammers' computers because the software the scammers use to try to control their victims' machines will only work if, to begin with, it's a two-way connection. So the scammers open up the line themselves in the belief that the people they're trying to steal from won't know how to do this. --
Billy is silly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 02 May 2023 14:55:45 -0700, Dr Dave wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call
centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

I watched the program and thought the scammers would not make a complaint.
The 'victim' in both cases was prevented from losing money and I also
thought they would not make a complaint either.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>, at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In
it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a
scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he
is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’
computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial jurisdiction
with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the perp isn't a
public authority and/or the tapping is on a private network (eg inside
a call centre) then it's usually the case that no crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover the situation if one of those involved in the call is British any
interception would be unlawful.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it
would be in the public interest to prosecute.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/05/2023 12:38, jon_t wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2023 14:55:45 -0700, Dr Dave wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an >> ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call
centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is
based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’
computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

I watched the program and thought the scammers would not make a complaint. The 'victim' in both cases was prevented from losing money and I also
thought they would not make a complaint either.

I watched two Scam Interceptors programmes. One showed how scammers
(always in India, with strong Indian accents apparently) targeted people
who had applied for small loans, the sort of people who don't have much
money and have a poor credit rating, and the scammers had somehow
obtained a full list of applicants with their names, addresses and other details - could it have been a leak from an employee of the loan company?

The scam was to ask for an advance fee on the pretext that it was an
insurance or other payment that would eventually be refunded, and people
who are desperate for a loan are easy targets.

The other scam highlighted was impersonating Amazon staff. Both scams
involved persuading the victim to install software on their phone or
computer to enable the scammer to inspect all the banking apps and log
into the bank's app.

The impression given, though, was that the intrepid BBC investigators
were only able to prevent a tiny number of frauds, by managing to
contact the victim before it was too late, and presumably thousands of
people are scammed and are the sort of people who aren't very articulate
in trying to persuade their bank to refund the money. Why isn't there a
branch of the police (or the wealthy banks) doing the job of
intercepting these scams and warning the customers?

Perhaps people should be discouraged from installing banking apps on
their phones, because it can be catastrophic if the phone is stolen.
There's a Times report today, referencing a Which investigation.

quote

Nick, 46, from Somerset, was in a busy London pub when his mobile phone
was stolen from his jacket, which was on the back of a chair.

By the next morning, £73,000 had been transferred from his personal
(£15,000) and business (£58,000) accounts to one controlled by a
fraudster. The case of Nick, who has not given his full name, was raised
by Which? to highlight the poor security of some banking apps.

However it has also emerged recently that criminals are “shoulder
surfing” — looking over people’s shoulders as they enter their phone passcode — and then stealing their phones.

Thieves would befriend victims, asking them to open up their social
media and looking at their passcode. In some cases they would turn off
the phone so a passcode was required to unlock it, bypassing face
verification.

Once in possession of an iPhone and passcode, the Apple ID password can
be changed, locking the owner out of the account. Tracking can also be
turned off and other trusted devices can be blocked. The passcode can
also unlock passwords stored on the device giving access to financial apps.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 03 May 2023 14:11:53 +0100, The Todal wrote:

However it has also emerged recently that criminals are “shoulder surfing” — looking over people’s shoulders as they enter their phone passcode — and then stealing their phones.

I have been using fingerprint ID on my phone (and laptop) since 2015.

Also wherever possible I use 2FA apps, not SMS.

As an aside, I notice with interest that OpenAI do not secure their
accounts with 2FA. And if you try to talk to them (via Twitter) about the omission, it's tumbleweed all the way.

I'm guessing they aren't run by ChatGPT - which advises 2FA on any
accounts that have financial details stored ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>,
at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave >><david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this >>>evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls
between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this
(he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >>>scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial
jurisdiction with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if
the perp isn't a public authority and/or the tapping is on a private >>network (eg inside a call centre) then it's usually the case that no
crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover
the situation if one of those involved in the call is British any >interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it
would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about
delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <kbf4spF4bh4U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:53 on Wed, 3 May
2023, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:

Why isn't there a branch of the police (or the wealthy banks) doing the
job of intercepting these scams and warning the customers?

There is, but as ever they can't drain the ocean with the teaspoon
they've been given.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 03 May 2023 16:42:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>,
at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave >>><david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this >>>>evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls >>>>between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this
(he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >>>>scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and >>>>screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial
jurisdiction with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the >>>perp isn't a public authority and/or the tapping is on a private
network (eg inside a call centre) then it's usually the case that no >>>crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover the >>situation if one of those involved in the call is British any
interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it
would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.

The flip side is that you will get prosecutions that are a total waste of public money undertaken to "send a a message". Which presumably came
about after a merger of the court and postal services ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/05/2023 16:42, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>,
at  14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening.
In  it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a
scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this
(he  is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the
scammers’  computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and
screen).

 There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial
jurisdiction  with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if
the perp isn't a  public authority and/or the tapping is on a private
network (eg inside  a call centre) then it's usually the case that no
crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover
the situation if one of those involved in the call is British any
interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

It depends at the point in interception. Electronic communication starts
at a microphone and ends with a speaker.

You are proposing that some interception between the two is lawful?

The Lord Bassam's doormat hypothesis is based on the postal service,
when once on the mat it could be deemed to be delivered, or perhaps not
if someone else picks it up.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it
would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.

In some instances, "However, there will be cases where it is clear,
prior to reviewing all the evidence, that the public interest does not
require a prosecution. In these instances, prosecutors may decide that
the case should not proceed further."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors

That seems to have nothing to the case in hand though I can see it would
be a waste of resources in the case in point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/05/2023 11:03, Sara Merriman wrote:

On 2 May 2023 at 22:55:45 BST, "Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an >> ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call centre >> in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is based
in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the scammers’ computers
which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

IIRC from something else I read somewhere, someone who knows how to work the system gets into the scammers' computers because the software the scammers use
to try to control their victims' machines will only work if, to begin with, it's a two-way connection. So the scammers open up the line themselves in the belief that the people they're trying to steal from won't know how to do this.

I think the players doing Scam Interception probably have their own
version of hacker software to probe and lay malware into the scammers
machine during that initial connection phase when the link is two way.

They probably also do it from within a sandbox so that if the scammers
attack proves too good the virtual machine can be incinerated pronto.

It is probably against the computer misuse act but as far as I am
concerned more power to their elbow and good luck to them. Ethical
hacking by vigilantes has its place in keeping the bad guys under
control - Inaction Fraud is less use than a chocolate fireguard.

I see the government is going to ban call calling phone scams as its
latest clueless wheeze. I wonder how they propose to do that when most
are injected attacks are from overseas boiler houses in dodgy countries?

The simple hardline rule that all incoming cold calls are presumed
hostile until proven innocent is perfectly adequate defence against them
(but that would probably dent telecoms income from the worst offenders).

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 12:11:30 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christ...@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this
evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls
between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he
is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial jurisdiction
with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the perp isn't a
public authority and/or the tapping is on a private network (eg inside
a call centre) then it's usually the case that no crime has been
committed.
--
Roland Perry

That’s a long way from what RIPA says.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/05/2023 16:07, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 14:11:53 +0100, The Todal wrote:

However it has also emerged recently that criminals are “shoulder
surfing” — looking over people’s shoulders as they enter their phone >> passcode — and then stealing their phones.

I have been using fingerprint ID on my phone (and laptop) since 2015.

I sometimes have trouble with that since my fingerprint can be damaged
or dirty when I'm working in the garage and the phone then doesn't see
it properly as mine after three goes it asks for the device PIN.

By the time I have put the PIN in the call has quite likely gone to answerphone. You can either have security or convenience.

Face recognition biometrics are more reliable in decent light.

I won't have a banking app on my phone. The only computer I use for
banking is a big ugly box physically secured in my home with several
layers of additional security around it.

Also wherever possible I use 2FA apps, not SMS.

I do sometimes have problems with 2FA in bad weather with heavy rain.
The confirmation codes don't always arrive before the web page times
out! It is a real nuisance going outside to wave the phone high in the
air under such conditions.

The one where scammers could see the transaction enabling OTP code flash
up on a stolen and still locked secure phone was particularly bad.

I think most (all?) banks have now rectified that by adding enough
preamble to their OTP SMS texts to ensure that all you see in the flash
window now is a warning never to give the OTP code to anyone else and especially not to someone who claims to be from your bank!

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <0b9b03e3-c39d-43bd-a7b2-85ca3ffc787dn@googlegroups.com>, at 15:11:58 on Wed, 3 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 12:11:30 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christ...@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this
evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls
between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he
is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the
scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the
audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial jurisdiction
with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the perp isn't a
public authority and/or the tapping is on a private network (eg inside
a call centre) then it's usually the case that no crime has been
committed.

That’s a long way from what RIPA says.

In a sense, yes, because that part has been repealed by subsequent
legislation (and is now blank). But before then it's what RIPA (taken as
a whole, not just a soundbite from the first few sections) meant, unless
you can provide a couple of highlights why not.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 11:07:14 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <0b9b03e3-c39d-43bd...@googlegroups.com>, at
15:11:58 on Wed, 3 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christ...@gmail.com> remarked:

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 12:11:30 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave
<david.christ...@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this
evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls
between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he
is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >> >scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the
audio (and screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial jurisdiction
with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the perp isn't a
public authority and/or the tapping is on a private network (eg inside
a call centre) then it's usually the case that no crime has been
committed.

That’s a long way from what RIPA says.

In a sense, yes, because that part has been repealed by subsequent legislation (and is now blank). But before then it's what RIPA (taken as
a whole, not just a soundbite from the first few sections) meant, unless
you can provide a couple of highlights why not.
--
Roland Perry

That activity would certainly have been prohibited under RIPA and is currently prohibited under IPA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

David McNeish <davidmcn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 09:20:06 UTC+1, Dr Dave wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an >> ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call
centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is
based in Scotland).

Did the programme suggest it was legal? Seems improbable if neither party
to the call had consented.

Certainly it is illegal to attempt to receive (listen to / intercept) a
radio transmission which isn’t intended for general reception, you don’t have a licence to cover the reception of, or you aren’t authorised by (
from memory) the Secretary of State. *

I would assume laws covering signals carried via wire/ cable etc / ‘the internet’ are covered by some similar laws.

* listening to aircraft on a scanner is illegal but generally ignored. I vaguely recall cases of people being done if caught listening to the police
but I think there were other factors. ( Before the police went digital.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/05/2023 06:33, Brian wrote:

* listening to aircraft on a scanner is illegal but generally ignored. I vaguely recall cases of people being done if caught listening to the police but I think there were other factors. ( Before the police went digital.)

RAF Valley, will kindly give you a list of frequencies for local
aircraft spotting. As to the police, they used to conveniently operate
base stations in band 2, just above the third programme.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/05/2023 14:32, Les. Hayward wrote:

On 06/05/2023 06:33, Brian wrote:

* listening to aircraft on a scanner is illegal but generally ignored.  I >> vaguely recall cases of people being done if caught listening to the
police
but I think there were other factors. ( Before the police went digital.)

RAF Valley, will kindly give you a list of frequencies for local
aircraft spotting. As to the police, they used to conveniently operate
base stations in band 2, just above the third programme.

Modern scanners have no trouble at all with air band stuff (unless the
military aircraft are not transmitting in the clear).

ISTR police band was just above the end of the FM band that a normal
radio tuner could reach (110MHz to 120MHz if memory serves). The tweak
to tune in there wasn't all that difficult on many sets.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/05/2023 17:09, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/05/2023 14:32, Les. Hayward wrote:

On 06/05/2023 06:33, Brian wrote:

* listening to aircraft on a scanner is illegal but generally
ignored.  I
vaguely recall cases of people being done if caught listening to the
police
but I think there were other factors. ( Before the police went digital.)

RAF Valley, will kindly give you a list of frequencies for local
aircraft spotting. As to the police, they used to conveniently operate
base stations in band 2, just above the third programme.

Modern scanners have no trouble at all with air band stuff (unless the military aircraft are not transmitting in the clear).

ISTR police band was just above the end of the FM band that a normal
radio tuner could reach (110MHz to 120MHz if memory serves). The tweak
to tune in there wasn't all that difficult on many sets.

Yes, they moved up there later, but originally the bases were within the broadcast band - but you could only hear the mobiles on talk-through.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u34or8$2o1rg$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:33:28 on Sat, 6 May
2023, Brian <noinv@lid.org> remarked:

David McNeish <davidmcn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 09:20:06 UTC+1, Dr Dave wrote:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this evening. In it, an
ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls between a scamming call
centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this (he is >>> based in Scotland).

Did the programme suggest it was legal? Seems improbable if neither party
to the call had consented.

Certainly it is illegal to attempt to receive (listen to / intercept) a
radio transmission which isn’t intended for general reception, you don’t >have a licence to cover the reception of, or you aren’t authorised by ( >from memory) the Secretary of State. *

I would assume laws covering signals carried via wire/ cable etc / ‘the >internet’ are covered by some similar laws.

That's an unfortunate assumption because most of the communications on
your list there aren't broadcasts. One of the unresolved issues I have
with RIPA and the Home Office's drafting, is it doesn't address in the slightest the issue of emails "broadcast" by list servers and usenet
servers (etc).

Many of the former not necessarily intended for public consumption.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u2u0h6$2gvph$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:43 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 16:42:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave >>>><david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this >>>>>evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls >>>>>between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this >>>>>(he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >>>>>scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and >>>>>screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial >>>>jurisdiction with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if the >>>>perp isn't a public authority and/or the tapping is on a private >>>>network (eg inside a call centre) then it's usually the case that no >>>>crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover the >>>situation if one of those involved in the call is British any >>>interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it
would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about
delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.

The flip side is that you will get prosecutions that are a total waste of >public money undertaken to "send a a message".

Sometimes there will be a test case like that, but it's down in the
noise level

Which presumably came about after a merger of the court and postal
services ?

Huh?
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 06 May 2023 16:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2u0h6$2gvph$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:43 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 16:42:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave >>>>><david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this >>>>>>evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls >>>>>>between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this >>>>>>(he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >>>>>>scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and >>>>>>screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial >>>>>jurisdiction with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if >>>>>the perp isn't a public authority and/or the tapping is on a private >>>>>network (eg inside a call centre) then it's usually the case that no >>>>>crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover >>>>the situation if one of those involved in the call is British any >>>>interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it >>>>would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about
delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.

The flip side is that you will get prosecutions that are a total waste
of public money undertaken to "send a a message".

Sometimes there will be a test case like that, but it's down in the
noise level

Which presumably came about after a merger of the court and postal
services ?

Huh?

Successive Prime (and other) ministers in the recent past have referred
to new laws being intended to "send a message". Which seems costly
compared to a postcard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u365vj$2gvph$13@dont-email.me>, at 18:23:48 on Sat, 6 May
2023, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

On Sat, 06 May 2023 16:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2u0h6$2gvph$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:43 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 16:42:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <u2tmko$19nhm$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:57 on Wed, 3 May
2023, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> remarked:

On 03/05/2023 11:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <6407c84f-5a87-4169-9917-8a4a35ff77fbn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>at 14:55:45 on Tue, 2 May 2023, Dr Dave >>>>>><david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> remarked:

I watched a programme called ‘Scam Interceptors’ this >>>>>>>evening. In it, an ethical hacker was able to listen in on calls >>>>>>>between a scamming call centre in India and victims in the UK.

This is interception so on what legal basis is he able to do this >>>>>>>(he is based in Scotland).

He’s presumably managed to install some software on the >>>>>>>scammers’ computers which sends him a copy of the audio (and >>>>>>>screen).

There's all kinds of complications with extra-territorial >>>>>>jurisdiction with laws like this, but putting that on one side: if >>>>>>the perp isn't a public authority and/or the tapping is on a private >>>>>>network (eg inside a call centre) then it's usually the case that no >>>>>>crime has been committed.

I think that is a very big jump to make. I'm sure UK law would cover >>>>>the situation if one of those involved in the call is British any >>>>>interception would be unlawful.

Read up about Lord Bassam's doormat, then get back to me.

However, given the nature and intent of the interception I doubt it >>>>>would be in the public interest to prosecute.

"In the public interest" doesn't mean what you think. It's not about
delivering natural justice, but wasting public money on a prosecution
when there are more pressing matters to deal with.

The flip side is that you will get prosecutions that are a total waste
of public money undertaken to "send a a message".

Sometimes there will be a test case like that, but it's down in the
noise level

Which presumably came about after a merger of the court and postal >>>services ?

Huh?

Successive Prime (and other) ministers in the recent past have referred
to new laws being intended to "send a message". Which seems costly
compared to a postcard.

That's laws, not prosecutions. It's important to be able to tell the difference.

Almost all such "new laws" don't in fact change anything, they are what
I call "Look, you stupid people, this thing was banned years ago, but
everyone quibbles about it, so let us spell it out again in words of one syllable".
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)