DEADLINE FRIDAY: Responding to draft CoP RIP Pt.I Ch.II (was RE: ZDNet UK 26/10/2001: "Home Office admits data retention plans")

[Caspar Bowden]

> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roger Hird
..
> >Caspar Bowden <cb@fipr.org> wrote:
> > There is no statutory basis for introducing such=20
> > distinctions in a CoP
>=20
> Really?  A CoP's guidance isn't it?  And to be used by judges=20
> in interpreting the statute? =20

Roland's proposal was very precise and discriminating between three
categories of purpose, two of which have equal standing, and one of
which is not even referred to in the corresponding part of the statute.=20

	"CSPs keep all existing logs for 12 months.
	 Disclosures are accepted for "National Security" up to 12
months
	                          for "Serious Crime" for 6 months
	                          for the rest, 3 months."

There is no reference to *serious* crime in RIP S.22(2) - it says
"crime".
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--c.htm#22

> It isn't statute and relying on it is more risky than relying=20
> on statute - but safer than ignoring it's guidance, surely?

Are then any precedents for a CoP inventing categories that rewrite the
statute in that way ? It's effectively telling the police to take a
running jump for making a legal and compulsory request ? Can Home Office
officials do that ?

--
Caspar =
Bowden=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 www.fipr.org
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333=20