BBC News Online: 'Snoop' plans put on hold

[Peter Fairbrother]

Nicholas Bohm wrote:
=20
> Part of the solution would be to limit the rights of any wider group of
> bodies (which in any case needs trimming) to access to the name and addre=
ss
> of the relevant comms system subscriber.
>=20
> This must be all most of them ever want or need; most of them wouldn't kn=
ow
> what to do with real traffic data, whose use ought to be much more closel=
y
> managed; and most subscribers wouldn't regard disclosure of their name an=
d
> address as an excessive intrusion if the system ensured that there were
> reasonable grounds for seeking it.
>=20
> Regards
>=20
> Nicholas Bohm

Hear Here! Add a requirement for a Judicial Warrant for all accesses, and
no-one could really object.

If 2,000 interception or full traffic data requests cost =A31000 each on
average for a warrant, and 20,000 requests for subscriber details cost =A3200
each, that's =A36,000,000 per year, or about 10p per year per UK citizen.

10p per year is not a high price to pay to prevent 1984, although some migh=
t
spin it in terms of extra Policemen or Hospitals.

-- Peter Fairbrother


These figures are based on the time taken by the person applying for the
warrant and the time the Judge takes to consider the case and make up his
mind, or a Stipendiary Magistrate in the case of subscriber details which
would generally warrant less scrutiny. A Court hearing would not be
required, it could be done in Chambers.

I haven't included any costs involved in serving the warrant/order on the
Service Provider(s), as that has to be done in any case. The number of
subscriber detail requests could also be brought down by allowing reverse
telephone number lookups, if the number is listed anyone with a telephone
directory CD can do that in minutes anyway - you can also go to a library
and look through a telephone directory, it only takes a few hours.