RIPA

[Q G Campbell]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hansen [mailto:davidh@spidacom.co.uk]
> Sent: 27 February 2001 06:23
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: RIPA
>=20
>=20
> On 26 Feb 01, at 18:07, Owen Lewis wrote:
>=20
> > The people make demands,
> > directly or indirectly. Govt moves legislation that serves those
> > demands.
>=20
> Not in the case of RIP. It was entirely driven by officials.
>
=20
On this I would have to agree with David Hansen. RIPA was no simple
knee-jerk reaction to media pressure like the Dangerous Dogs Act was.
This was a detailed and comprehensive Bill which required years of
effort and inter-departmental discussion to draft.

IANAL but if the earlier Computer Misuse Act 1990 is anything to go by,
the complex and (sometimes confusingly) detailed measures in RIPA are
its likely strength.

The CMU Act, on the other hand, was drafted as a simple measure (18
sections in all of which just 3 short sections cover the substantive
offences) because it was thought this would be the quickest and most
effective way of dealing with a new form of crime.

The courts thought differently and the CMU went through nine years of
very embarrassing failures (eg. the Bignell case) until in 1999 the
Court of Appeal in the "AMEX" case finaly interpreted it in the way it
had been originally intended.

Nor should RIPA 2000 be seen in isolation either since the Terrorism Act
2000 would appear to complement it. Both Acts are a direct consequence
of Irish terrorism moving to Britain.

To the extent that these Acts work to counter this threat then they will
be welcomed by the British "public". I am equally sure too that other
LEAs welcome the provisions in these Acts, for example to help them
counter the activities of animal liberation extremists.=20

Who exactly demanded this legislation? My guess is the organisation in
Northern Ireland that is most responsible for the intelligence led
campaign againt the IRA. Geraghty and others suggest the MoD rather than
the Security Service as the main driving force. There was in any case a
need to strengthen and make permanent the temporary powers in the
emergency legislation covering anti-terrorism measures in Britain and
Northern Ireland.

It also appears that European Human Rights concerns were recognised as
being important in the early stages of the drafting as these were always
a bigger issue in Northern Ireland than in Britain until quite recently.

So why was the Home Office rather than the MoD the sponsoring government
department for both of these Acts? I would suggest it was for the same
reasons that you never saw tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland. In
any case the Home Office would have fought to control any such
legislation because it is responsible for maintaining law and order in
Britain.

Quentin