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

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <79FL23YhGEQ9EwIu@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@linx.net> writes

>I'd like to think they could introduce some primary legislation, but 
>that's probably unrealistic (until perhaps there's Parliamentary time 
>for something that would also sort out the equally unsatisfactory and 
>remarkably similar issues surrounding the Computer Misuse Act).
>
>So it'll probably be a new SI, with the detail changed around [1] and 
>better explained ahead of time, and a Code of Practice with more teeth - 
>for example, it could easily say that Public Authorities MUST use RIPA 
>rather than legacy disclosure legislation, except in well-documented 
>exceptional cases [every agency has a plausible war story ...]
>
>[1] Does it really have to say "any local authority", when what they 
>mean is "any trading standards office", or "The Home Office" when they 
>mean "The Immigration Service" ?

More substantially, does it really have to say "communications data"
when they actually mean (in every war story I have seen the Home Office
come up with so far for these extra authorities) 21(4)(c) information ??

Or more specifically, all these extra authorities are qualified (and
funded) or indeed wish to do is reverse lookup -- viz: dereferencing of
cyberspace identifiers like email addresses and phone numbers into real
space identifiers such as name and address.

I think there would have been far less fuss if all the other comms data
(lists of correspondents, mobile location data, times of calls) hadn't
been up for grabs as well.

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

Are you a Friend of FIPR yet?       http://www.fipr.org/friends.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPUBHIRfnRQV/feRLEQIOZgCcD2xXJxYS+XcabJ3L1cOOeJN0omEAoM2E
fzaVREJ6vCtIAHcNHVUkn3qC
=MytV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----