RIP s22 notices SI

[Roland Perry]

In message <BB3AF5C4A607FE4E969AA39CB42B6C7B77B7@bond.campus.ncl.ac.uk>, 
Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk> writes
>I suspect that the original drafting of S22 & S25, and the omission of
>these additional public bodies, was quite deliberate and cynically
>designed to mislead MPs.

The original idea was a muddle between "if it's that important to get 
the data, ask a policeman/court to get it for you" (rather like getting 
a policeman to arrest and charge people, once you've done your fraud or 
whatever investigation), and "the minor agencies can continue to use DPA 
29(3) forms". However, the human rights aspects of the latter have now 
sunk in - and hence the last para in the Guardian article (which I agree 
sounds a bit odd out of context) - and the former was always a 
non-starter from a practical point of view.

The Benefits Agency (now DWP) broke ranks first, and had powers just 
like RIPA 21(4)c installed in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 (and 
also powers to request similar information from almost anyone useful). 
That didn't cause too much of a ripple, for whatever reasons, so all 
these new agencies have decided that the answer is to get full RIPA 
access (rather than a dozen or more copycat Acts).

One possible damage limitation, which relies on the split between 21(4) 
a, b & c, is for the Home Office to restrict most of the new agencies 
access only to 'c' (the subscriber details), using 25(3).

I can see why people think the damage is considerable, though.
-- 
Roland Perry