Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> There is a very big restriction.  There are no designated persons until the
> second Order is adopted.  If there are no designated persons no one can use
> RIPA to access any data.

Let us assume that what you say is true.  Why, then, did the Home
Secretary not react to the public outcry by simply saying ``Hang on,
this document merely defines bodies within which there will be
designated persons, the list of designated persons is here [*], please
look at this and see what the substantive act will actually provide''.
I think everyone apart from the most foaming opponents would have
reacted well to that.  Instead, he immediately backed down.

I'm sorry, but the fabled ``second instrument'' has the whiff of
post-hoc justification to it.  Had it been published in parallel with
the first, much of the opposition would have been pre-empted.  Had it
been published immediately after the storm blew up, many of the teeth of
the opponents (if you will allow me to mix my metaphors) would have been
drawn.

All Blunkett had to say in reaction to the suggestion, very much part of
the `on dit' at the time, that the deputy chairman of the egg marketing
board would have had interception powers was ``No, no one has powers,
you will need to wait for the next instrument''.  He didn't.  Either he
was very badly advised, or the second document didn't exist at the time.
I can't offhand see a third choice.

[*] The image of the Home Secretary standing in front of cameras and
waving a list of names is sufficiently resonant, I think.

ian