Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <3DAFE3F0.5090806@234.cx>, Pete Chown <1@234.cx> writes
>David_Biggins@usermgmt.com wrote:
>
>> I would worry that under such publication, someone who had been
>> investigated and no further action taken would nevertheless be publicly
>> stigmatised - the "there's no smoke without fire" attitude.
>
>I would like to see disclosure to the target of the investigation.  Of course 
>general statistical information should be made public, but I wouldn't want that 
>to extend to the specific individuals who were tapped.

 The type of information I would like to see disclosed is two-fold.
 To the individual, the type of surveillance they have been subject to,
 at the close of prosecution or the decision not to prosecute [with some
 safeguard that this cannot be delayed forever].  

 To the public, how many organisations, persons, and phone-numbers total
 have been subject to (a) content interception, (b) traffic listing, 
 and (c) disclosure of ownership.  Ideally divided into no prosecution,
 prosecution failed, prosecution succeeded, and still-pending.

 As a safeguard that might be divided into pending 1, 2, 5, 10, and 
 "more" years.  Too many long-pending cases would arouse skepticism!


- --                                                            .---.
  It was once believed that a million monkeys at a million   { o o } 
  keyboards would eventually type the works of Shakespeare,  _(---)_
  but the Internet has since disproved this theory.         /       \     

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPbDBA3pGxv7MBb4WEQIZ4ACcDR3I08Zyuvg6KdxYB2m7uXBYdeYAoOwR
oLCRhQbnmo3hiPy0Xb6KTRuJ
=b2G4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----