Telecom NZ

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bruce Sinclair, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. In article <7n8zc.2008$>, "Michael Payne" <> was seen to type:
    >At the bottom of an email from Telecom New Zealand recently I noted:
    >
    >Please note that this communication does not designate an information system
    >for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
    >
    >What exactly does that mean?


    Means they have defined themselves as something else to avoid the law
    to me.

    Anyone surprised ? :)


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. At the bottom of an email from Telecom New Zealand recently I noted:

    Please note that this communication does not designate an information system
    for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

    What exactly does that mean?
     
    Michael Payne, Jun 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Sinclair

    Adam Warner Guest

    Hi Michael Payne,

    > At the bottom of an email from Telecom New Zealand recently I noted:
    >
    > Please note that this communication does not designate an information
    > system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
    >
    > What exactly does that mean?


    <http://www.legislation.govt.nz/>

    Section 5 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 includes this
    definition:

    ``information system'' has the meaning set out in section 10(2)

    Here is section 10:

    10.Time of dispatch—

    (1)An electronic communication is taken to be dispatched at the time the
    electronic communication first enters an information system outside the
    control of the originator.

    (2)For the purposes of sections 10 and 11, information system means a
    system for producing, sending, receiving, storing, displaying, or
    otherwise processing electronic communications.


    A potential interpretation of Telecom's statement that the communication
    does not "designate an information system" is that Telecom have not
    distinguished or identified the server or time at which the electronic
    communication first enters an information system outside their control.

    Consider some possibilities for an email communication:

    (a) A Telecom SMTP server sends the email onto a third party SMTP server.

    (b) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom. The email is not quickly
    sent to a server outside its control. Instead it sits on a Telecom server
    until downloaded by the customer using the POP3 protocol/"read" on the
    server using the IMAP protocol.

    (c) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom and the customer accesses
    the mail via a web based system under the customer's control.

    (d) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom and accesses their mail
    via a Telecom Xtra promotional terminal under the control of Telecom. (Was
    the electronic communication dispatched?)

    Here is the Ministry of Economic Development's discussion of the section:
    <http://www.med.govt.nz/irdev/elcom/transactions/explanation/explanation-03.html>


    What is clear is that Telecom certainly used an information system to send
    the communication according to the definition of information system in
    s10(2) of the Act. Telecom appears to be attempting to dispel any
    presumption as to the time of dispatch. The statement may be related to
    section 9 which sets out when the default rules in sections 10 to 13
    apply:

    9.When default rules in sections 10 to 13 apply—

    Sections 10 to 13 apply to an electronic communication except to the
    extent that—

    (a)the parties to the communication otherwise agree:

    (b)an enactment provides otherwise.


    Telecom's statement appears to provide no opportunity for agreement.
    At first sight it appears the statement could help them make a section 16
    argument:

    16.Consent to use of electronic technology—

    (1)Nothing in this Part requires a person to use, provide, or accept
    information in an electronic form without that person's consent.

    (2)For the purposes of this Part,—

    (a)a person may consent to use, provide, or accept information in an
    electronic form subject to conditions regarding the form of the
    information or the means by which the information is produced, sent,
    received, processed, stored, or displayed:

    (b)consent may be inferred from a person's conduct.

    (3)Subsections (1) and (2)(a) are for the avoidance of doubt.


    If you continue to receive the information in an electronic form "subject
    to conditions regarding the form of the information or the means by which
    the information is produced, sent, received, processed, stored, or
    displayed" then a Court might be persuaded of your consent to Telecom's
    interpretation if you never questioned nor rejected it.

    This argument appears to fail because s16(b) only applies to the "purposes
    of this Part". Sections 9 to 13 are in Part 2 of the Act. Section 16 is in
    Part 3.

    It is still unclear what the Telecom statement is intended to achieve. It
    appears innocuous if simply interpreted as a statement that Telecom did
    not identify the information system that will end up dispatching the
    electronic communication to an information system outside the control of
    the originator (Telecom). As Telecom can't identify this at the time the
    email is written perhaps it indicates that the date in the body of the
    email does not designate when it was dispatched.

    This is just an informal response based upon my first reading of the Act!

    Regards,
    Adam
     
    Adam Warner, Jun 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Bruce Sinclair

    thing Guest

    Telecom has been rumoured to be having issues with mail delivery. It may
    possibly be that thier systems are delaying the mail for days, possibly
    even past the 5 day limit (in which case the mail might get dropped?) So
    it could be a get out clause if any one complains about "slow" email. If
    Micheal looks at the headers of the email, he maybe able to determine
    the mail path and how long it took, as it is often time stamped.

    regards

    Thing


    Adam Warner wrote:
    > Hi Michael Payne,
    >
    >
    >>At the bottom of an email from Telecom New Zealand recently I noted:
    >>
    >>Please note that this communication does not designate an information
    >>system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
    >>
    >>What exactly does that mean?

    >
    >
    > <http://www.legislation.govt.nz/>
    >
    > Section 5 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 includes this
    > definition:
    >
    > ``information system'' has the meaning set out in section 10(2)
    >
    > Here is section 10:
    >
    > 10.Time of dispatch—
    >
    > (1)An electronic communication is taken to be dispatched at the time the
    > electronic communication first enters an information system outside the
    > control of the originator.
    >
    > (2)For the purposes of sections 10 and 11, information system means a
    > system for producing, sending, receiving, storing, displaying, or
    > otherwise processing electronic communications.
    >
    >
    > A potential interpretation of Telecom's statement that the communication
    > does not "designate an information system" is that Telecom have not
    > distinguished or identified the server or time at which the electronic
    > communication first enters an information system outside their control.
    >
    > Consider some possibilities for an email communication:
    >
    > (a) A Telecom SMTP server sends the email onto a third party SMTP server.
    >
    > (b) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom. The email is not quickly
    > sent to a server outside its control. Instead it sits on a Telecom server
    > until downloaded by the customer using the POP3 protocol/"read" on the
    > server using the IMAP protocol.
    >
    > (c) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom and the customer accesses
    > the mail via a web based system under the customer's control.
    >
    > (d) The email recipient is a customer of Telecom and accesses their mail
    > via a Telecom Xtra promotional terminal under the control of Telecom. (Was
    > the electronic communication dispatched?)
    >
    > Here is the Ministry of Economic Development's discussion of the section:
    > <http://www.med.govt.nz/irdev/elcom/transactions/explanation/explanation-03.html>
    >
    >
    > What is clear is that Telecom certainly used an information system to send
    > the communication according to the definition of information system in
    > s10(2) of the Act. Telecom appears to be attempting to dispel any
    > presumption as to the time of dispatch. The statement may be related to
    > section 9 which sets out when the default rules in sections 10 to 13
    > apply:
    >
    > 9.When default rules in sections 10 to 13 apply—
    >
    > Sections 10 to 13 apply to an electronic communication except to the
    > extent that—
    >
    > (a)the parties to the communication otherwise agree:
    >
    > (b)an enactment provides otherwise.
    >
    >
    > Telecom's statement appears to provide no opportunity for agreement.
    > At first sight it appears the statement could help them make a section 16
    > argument:
    >
    > 16.Consent to use of electronic technology—
    >
    > (1)Nothing in this Part requires a person to use, provide, or accept
    > information in an electronic form without that person's consent.
    >
    > (2)For the purposes of this Part,—
    >
    > (a)a person may consent to use, provide, or accept information in an
    > electronic form subject to conditions regarding the form of the
    > information or the means by which the information is produced, sent,
    > received, processed, stored, or displayed:
    >
    > (b)consent may be inferred from a person's conduct.
    >
    > (3)Subsections (1) and (2)(a) are for the avoidance of doubt.
    >
    >
    > If you continue to receive the information in an electronic form "subject
    > to conditions regarding the form of the information or the means by which
    > the information is produced, sent, received, processed, stored, or
    > displayed" then a Court might be persuaded of your consent to Telecom's
    > interpretation if you never questioned nor rejected it.
    >
    > This argument appears to fail because s16(b) only applies to the "purposes
    > of this Part". Sections 9 to 13 are in Part 2 of the Act. Section 16 is in
    > Part 3.
    >
    > It is still unclear what the Telecom statement is intended to achieve. It
    > appears innocuous if simply interpreted as a statement that Telecom did
    > not identify the information system that will end up dispatching the
    > electronic communication to an information system outside the control of
    > the originator (Telecom). As Telecom can't identify this at the time the
    > email is written perhaps it indicates that the date in the body of the
    > email does not designate when it was dispatched.
    >
    > This is just an informal response based upon my first reading of the Act!
    >
    > Regards,
    > Adam
     
    thing, Jun 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Bruce Sinclair

    steve Guest

    Michael Payne wrote:
    > At the bottom of an email from Telecom New Zealand recently I noted:
    >
    > Please note that this communication does not designate an information system
    > for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
    >
    > What exactly does that mean?


    Ask them?
     
    steve, Jun 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Bruce Sinclair

    steve Guest

    Adam Warner wrote:

    > This is just an informal response based upon my first reading of the Act!
    >
    > Regards,
    > Adam


    Bloody impressive - as usual.

    Where do you find the time? That post must have taken at least 30
    minutes to an hour.
     
    steve, Jun 14, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Snell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    485
    Martin Snell
    Dec 5, 2003
  2. Pokey
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    476
    Pokey
    Dec 23, 2003
  3. Pokey
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    Pokey
    Feb 5, 2004
  4. MEL
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    527
    X--Eliminator
    Dec 11, 2005
  5. Knowing About
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    831
    Knowing About
    Oct 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page