RIP s22 notices SI

[Pete Chown]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:

> I can't see anything in RIPA that would
> prevent the HO from just demanding all traffic data with a "blanket"
> warrant

It would be quite ironic from a historical point of view if this was
done.  In 1763 and 1765 there were two cases about search warrants:
Wilkes v. Wood in 1763 and Entick v. Carrington in 1765.  Wilkes v. Wood
established the principle that a warrant had to be restricted to
specific addresses.  Entick v. Carrington established that it had to
describe the items to be seized.  (Of course these cases were two
centuries before PACE, so they don't apply directly now.  PACE warrants
still work in a similar way though.)

In Entick v. Carrington, the then Lord Chief Justice (Lord Camden)
wrote, "The arguments, which the defendants' counsel have thought fit to
urge in support of this practice, are of this kind: [ ... ] And it is
further insisted, that this power is essential to government, and the
only means of quieting clamours and sedition.  These arguments, if they
can be called arguments, shall all be taken notice of; because on this
question I am desirous of removing every colour of plausibility [ ... ]
The warrant to seize and carry away the party's papers in the case of a
seditious libel, is illegal and void."

Some debates don't change much in a century or two...  I'm sure our
present government can sympathise with the problems Carrington was
having "quieting clamours and sedition".

-- 
Pete