Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Dave Bird]

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

In article <E+6paHCUxas9EwuU@tigers.demon.co.uk>, Mary Hawking
<maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <SL0mncDDEMs9Ewvq@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird 
><dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>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].
>
>And what has been done with the information obtained? Who has had 
>access, and whether all traces of this information have been reliably 
>destroyed?

 This could be in a more detailed report e.g. made available to
 parliament and then immediately published.  The kind of report
 I had in mind was numerical i.e. this was done so many times.  
 Logically, rules for destruction of data afterwards belong 
 in some sort of regulations or code of practice.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Hm. I thought RIP was concerned with traffic data. Is content 
>interception included? and if it is, what are the regulations regarding 
>this?
>What do you mean by "disclosure of ownership"? Ownership of the origin 
>of the request for information?

 Sorry if I was unclear.  RIP covers all three areas, but the
 regulations being discussed here are for the part which covers
 traffic and ownership only.  By "disclosure of ownership"
 I mean a request which say "for telephone number 020 xxxx yyyy,
 who pays the bill, what address is the phone at, and what address
 (if different) is the bill sent to."
>>
>> As a safeguard that might be divided into pending 1, 2, 5, 10, and
>> "more" years.  Too many long-pending cases would arouse skepticism!
>>
>The problem with this is that it would record historical data only....

 I do not mean this would be the ONLY control: I mean, among other 
 things, numbers should be disclosed through parliament as to what
 was actually done.  Without this. alarming trends can hang around
 unreported -- if you don't know what's going on, you can't query it.
>
>Mary Hawking
>

- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


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

iQA/AwUBPbLcxXpGxv7MBb4WEQLllgCgmZTqkc0CEKr8XYBr3d/h0i8FsEoAmwYe
YFUF1d5IIXXkFRJeKoLVp2mL
=AMkv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----