RIP s22 notices SI

[David Hansen]

On 10 Jun 2002 at 22:40, Roland Perry wrote:

> Notices (they are not warrants) are issued by investigating officers.

That is at the heart of the problem.

One can collaborate with things that are wrong, or one can try to do 
something about them. There is no reason why breaking into someone's 
communications should be treated any differently to breaking into 
someone's house. Especially as their communications are vastly more 
personal than mere physical items.
 
> The long term oversight comes from the Interception Commissioner [NB -
> even though this is not interception in the normal sense].

That hardly gives me confidence.
 
> 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.

Ho, ho, ho. The police have a long history of not giving anything 
that might undermine their case to "interfering" people. Stefan 
Kiszko is one example. Relatively recently the law arising out of 
those outrages was changed so that the police can again pick and 
choose what they give to "interfering" people, a shameful position.

That's the police. With every Tom, Dick and Harriet things will be 
much worse.


--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.