Comments on: Debate: The real problems with the Communications Data Bill may not be what you think

By: Rosella

Rosella — Fri, 24 May 2013 17:34:38 +0000

By doing so, you might be guaranteeing that there will likely
be no leftover grounds or residue from yesterday’s brew , which Rosella can negatively have an effect on the flavour of your espresso. This will make sure that you get the freshest, highest high quality beans to grind Don’t buy too many beans at one time.

By: Jamie Bartlett

Jamie Bartlett — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:31:57 +0000

Thanks guys. Andrew: not sure we disagree? I say in the article magistrates warrant should be necessary, in my view, to access comms data. James: Chapter 2 of RIPA is about surveillance, essentially comms data. Chapter 1 of RIPA is about intercept, which would not be changed by the draft bill. That was the point I’m making. It doesn’t make it easier to access that information, it’s just there is more of it now (in my view), which is why I think a higher level of authorisation should be required. I’ve written a submission on the Demos site that might clarify. Thanks, Jamie

By: James Baker

James Baker — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:47:16 +0000

Jamie wrote: “Crucially, the state only accesses this information when a successful application is made through the existing Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.”

However if you read the bill its summary states : “The new regime replaces Part 1 Chapter 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”)”

The point being that this replaces large chunks of RIPA and makes it even easier to access that information.

By: Andrew Watson

Andrew Watson — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:04:33 +0000

Jamie wrote: “Crucially, the state only accesses this information when a successful application is made through the existing Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This does not include the content of a communication — which has to go through a more stringent process of access. In that respect, not so much has changed, because this all happens already, it’s just that rather often, the information the police want is not there.”

But those “successful applications” for communications data under RIPA are running at a rate of about 500,000/year, and there’s no meaningful oversight of the application process.

However, RIPA requests for communications data made by elected local authorities will soon require approval by a magistrate (see: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/changes-council-surveillance-powers
).

If judicial oversight is necessary before accountable, elected councils can request communications data, surely it’s doubly necessary for the hundreds of other, unaccountable, unelected bodies that currently request the same information using RIPA powers?

If anyone in authority wants to know who I’m calling, emailing and texting, and which web sites I vists, they should have to convince a magistrate they have a good reason for wanting to know.