Timeline for Is it illegal to NOT store logs within the UK? (VPN related)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 5, 2019 at 19:28 | vote | accept | Mr Duck | ||
| Dec 5, 2019 at 19:27 | comment | added | Mr Duck | Interesting reading through these comments. I will mark Moo's answer as correct simply due to the higher upvote but thank you both for answering my question. :) | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 23:07 | history | edited | user28517 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1198 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:57 | comment | added | Putvi | How do you figure a VPN is like Skype? One is just a service anonymizing you and the other is acting as a VOIP service and is included because of the VOIP service. Look at where the other article says a business offering WIFI is not a provider because they are a customer of a provider's service. A VPN is just software running on a provider's service in that way. VOIP is a special case since it is acting as a phone service. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:55 | comment | added | user28517 | The Thomson Reuters link is an interpretation by a legal firm, and infact it gives some nice examples of why a VPN company would fall under the legislation - for example, it includes services such as Skype, and is based on the 2003 Communications Act - the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act contains its own definitions for the terms it operates on, and they cover VPN service providers just fine. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:50 | comment | added | Putvi | Look at the Thomson Reuters link where it spells it out. It's just common sense if you don't try to bend the words. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:49 | comment | added | user28517 | Not one which backs up the statement "The courts of the UK do not agree with you though and they make the call." ICO is the Information Commissioners Office, not a court. The things it cites on the page are laws, not courts. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:49 | comment | added | Putvi | There is another. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:49 | comment | added | Putvi | uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/… | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:47 | comment | added | user28517 | Please back that statement up. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:47 | comment | added | Putvi | The courts of the UK do not agree with you though and they make the call. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:39 | comment | added | user28517 | As usual, discussing this with you @Putvi is pointless. My post stands as is and your odd interpretations are rejected out of hand. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:35 | comment | added | Putvi | C'mon. That is not the intent or the law. I see that you can fit a VPN service into it if you try, but the intent is for companies providing the physical network to be covered, because it would cross over land physically. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:33 | comment | added | user28517 | @Putvi I can see several definitions in there that a VPN service would fall under. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:32 | comment | added | Putvi | ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/… | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:32 | comment | added | Putvi | well the UK government's definitons don't agree with what you have said. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:29 | comment | added | user28517 | @Putvi A VPN company can easily and trivially fall under the definition of the above - they are providing a telecommunications service in the same manner as a virtual ISP does when renting physical infrastructure from a larger ISP. Given that one of the intentions of this law was to allow legal access to VPN data, I think the UK government is more intelligent than you think. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:23 | comment | added | Putvi | That law refers to telecommunications providers though (phone companies, ISPs, and such). He does not fit that from what he said. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 21:19 | history | answered | user28517 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |