RIP s22 notices SI

[Roland Perry]

In message <B92AE1C9.1F1CB%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
<zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes

>But the Home Office wants to add itself to the list of people who can issue
>notices, and then the Home Secretary can himself (or get someone else who is
>an "investigating officer", a term I can't find in part 1 chapter 2, to)
>issue one.

Sure, but they have to be investigating *something*. I'm not sure what 
the Home Office directly investigate, unless it's things like checking 
that people with student visas are really studying, etc. (The facility 
in Croydon is part of the Home Office).

The forms are signed by a "designated person" who has a specified 
"office, rank or position". The only ones published, as far as I am 
aware, are police Superintendents for all forms of comms data, and 
Inspectors who can sign for only subscriber details. No doubt the famous 
Code of Practice will make this all clearer.

>>> Who's to stop him anyway? Or even make public his action, if he and the PM
>>> don't want it reported? There isn't any judicial review.
>>
>> The long term oversight comes from the Interception Commissioner [NB -
>> even though this is not interception in the normal sense].
>
>Who can be required by the PM to not reveal anything the PM doesn't want
>revealed, even to Parliament.

To be fair, current reports, which are about the much more sensitive 
issue of interception, are quite candid.

>> In the shorter term it comes from the evidence, from any notice issued
>> during an investigation, being available to the defence when the case
>> comes to court.
>
>And if the source of the evidence is protected by (I don't know the exact
>name for it, but a National Security exemption)?

There are guidelines for the circumstances where that can be invoked. 
The judiciary would have to be part of any widespread conspiracy of this 
nature.

> Besides, it doesn't have
>to be used in Court, they could use it for Watergate-type purposes. As for
>the argument that the ISP's will report this, I doubt it - there is after
>all an Official Secrets Act if nothing else.

Oddly enough, most people going through the courts are for things far 
more boring than being spies.
-- 
Roland Perry