Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:

> > From: David Howe [mailto:DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk]
> > Sent: 23 October 2002 15:52
> >
> > if, after the primary addition to the access list was passed,
> > but before the second limitation list entered into force, there was a
> > further delay, it is possible the primary would pass into force before
> > the restriction did (and that the named organisations, down to the dog
> > catchers, suddenly start drafting ripa orders)
> 
> Like I keep saying, they couldn't have!

Unfortunately, no one knew that.  The dog catchers would have thought
they were impowered, and the recipient of the dog catcher order wouldn't
know any different.  Moreover, a local government (bastions of honesty,
all) would mutter about the ``if you tell anyone about this you're in
trouble'' clauses in RIPA and tried to suppress people from getting
legal advice.

> > or that additional
> > people would be added to the secondary by a politician, who could then
> > present it as "take this new list or live without any restrictions at
> > all".
> 
> But the list could not be added to on the "second" Order.  A new "first"
> Order would be needed for that!

But the justification for the broad first order was to cover all
options, to avoid later having to re-pass it.  If changes to the second
order would require a new first order, why not draft the first order as
restrictively as the second?

ian