Observer Front Page: Police to track mobile phone users

[Caspar Bowden]

> [mailto:owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> In article <200007301918.UAA18608@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
> <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
> >>Under the RIP Act, the
> >>authorities will be able to bypass the phone companies.
> >
> >Can somebody explain to me how this can be?
>
> Over-fertile imagination regarding Authorisations (rather
> then Notices) to collect Comms Data, I should think.

Possibly, but anyhow the point is that with GSM it has to be done as a
special case (for any accuracy), an active procedure. With UMTS it will be
precomputed, just be another field in the comms data stream

> >> A spokeswoman for Vodafone said: `It is true that under
> >> this new Act the police will not have to get our approval
>
> True, in as much as a Notice doesn't appear to allow the
> telco to decide if it approves or not (other than rejecting
> it as invalid).
>
> >> to access this information any more.
>
> >Again, that needs more explanation. How is it technically possible?
>
> Not so much technique as process.

It remains Legal under Pt.I Ch.II to use an Authorisation to remote control
a black box or telephony interface, to directly access comms data readouts
from the service operators equipment - it's just another access code. The
government were never pinned down on this point properly - they always
cavilled by talking of intention.

viz
===========
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/
lds00/text/00619-27.htm

Lord Cope: ...I did not hear whether the Minister said that, in future, data
would be obtainable without the knowledge of the ISP. The purpose of
Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A is to try to make it unlawful to obtain data
without the ISP knowing. Will the black boxes be able to obtain such
communications data without the knowledge of the ISP?

Lord Bassam: ... It is not intended that a service provider's intercept
capability will be used covertly by intercepting agencies...

Lord Cope of Berkeley: It certainly answers the point with regard to the
Government's intention in the matter, but it does not quite answer the point
as to whether it would be lawful under the wording in the Bill
===========

and (which unfortunately Cope did not follow up....)
===========
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/
lds00/text/00619-28.htm

Lord Cope of Berkeley: ...
	I, too, received the Home Office briefing to which
	the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred, under the
	cover of a letter from the Home Secretary. It has
	obviously been widely distributed in an attempt to
	fend off some of the criticisms. It says firmly and
	in rather large type, so that we do not miss it:

		"The Government has no plans whatsoever to
		require anyone to install any equipment for
		the provision of communications data".

=========

...by pointing out that a bog-standard black-box will do nicely thanks you !

If the Government wanted to make it illegal, the problem was waved in front
of their nose twice, and they ducked both times. Why ?
--
Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
RIP Information Centre at:    www.fipr.org/rip#media