New RIPA ammendment(s) probably coming in "autumn"

[Roland Perry]

In message <20020729141252.20E59C149@davros.tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James 
Hammerton <james@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes
>As the Stand site you cite below makes clear, the 22 public
>authorities do not have the power to demand the information concerned
>except via a warrant, merely a power to request it. Giving them the
>s22 power would enable them to demand it without a
>warrant. Furthermore s22 would also allow them to demand that CSPs
>collect additional data, a power they do not currently have.
>
>Those 22 public authorities thus would have more powers to get hold of
>this data, and could do so without recourse to either the courts or
>the police to do it. Thus the existing situation has more safeguards
>than the current one, with respect to comms data and those
>authorities.

We need to be clear about the various classes of requests for data.

It's still the same for all the Public Authorities (Police, Customs etc 
+ the proposed 24 new ones).

(1) Data can be requested -  by 29(3) DPA form.  No safeguards.

(2) Data can be demanded via a basket of legacy  No safeguards.
legislation. More research is required to nail
these don exactly, but very few require a
judicial warrant.

(3) Judicial Warrant.                           Judicial Safeguard (but
                                                 people sometimes still
                                                 disagree with the
                                                 decisions).
>>
>> There's no realistic prospect of repealing all those powers in the
>> foreseeable future.
>
>Why not?

Simply the amount of work involved in researching the powers, listing 
them, finding where those powers are cross-referenced in other Act, and 
so on. Then persuading several different Govt departments to work 
together to make a unified approach. And that's even if they all agree 
that it's a good idea.

>> I argue that it's less worse for all the agencies to work within RIPA
>> (and for its CoP to say that the alternative powers are only to be used
>> in special cases), because then there is at least some oversight and
>> consistency.
>
>ISTM there is more oversight of the DPA powers since to demand as oppose to
>request the data a warrant is needed from a court.

But most data *requests* are successful.

>And I quote the above site:
>
>"No matter what Mr Ainsworth said, there were more groups on that list
>than have powers to grab your data. And the ones who did have
>statutory access to your personal details would have far greater
>powers under RIP."

29(3) worked for all of them.
-- 
Roland Perry