Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Ross Anderson]

Simon:

> A guilty individual who knows they are acting (or have acted) unlawfully
> will have some expectation that whatever authority is tasked with
> investigating that conduct, might well undertake such intrusion into their
> privacy as is necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
>
> An innocent individual has no such expectation.

I disagree.

If I am guilty of tax fiddling but not of terrorism, I do not expect
that my phone will be tapped. If I'm falsely accused - or implicated
by innocent mistake in an investigation - of terrorism, and the
investigator concludes that I'm laundering my book royalties through
a Jersey back account and not declaring them, then it is unjust if he
tips off the Revenue. At least, that's what I believe most people
would hold.

There needs to be a real firewall built here. I can imagine, for
example, that a future government might build a national traffic
database in order to catch terrorists. How do we stop it being
opened to one investigative branch after another, until even the
social workers can trawl it?

I think we need to revisit the whole issue of whether illegally
obtained evidence can be used in court. That may be needed in order
to remove a big incentive for mission creep

Ross