Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:49:11 +0100
	"Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com> said...

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Sommer <hcorn@cix.co.uk>
> To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Sent: 09 September 2002 17:00
> Subject: Re: Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs
> 
> I was responding to your quotation from Chap 8 of the consultation paper and
> the limitations (IOCA) of the use of intercepts obtained under warrant. In
> my mind at time of writing were hardwire taps, reprogramming of PBXs,
> interception of wireless telecommunications (and else besides).
> 
> Not too sure what you may mean by a wired bug. Though jargon is usually
> sloppy in use, 'bugs' are generally considered to be wireless and 'taps' to
> be hardwired or capacitative/inductive coupling. However, where a 'tap'
> feeds a wireless transmitter rather than a recorder (remotely or locally
> sited) it would normally be referred to as a bug. Also, a standalone
> hardwired system (e.g. as might used for through-the-wall eavesdropping)
> would be generally termed a bug - as would a wireless system used for the
> same task.

I think the distinction that is important is this:

A: Two people are in close contact (within earshot, or visual range).
What they say to each other does not constitute "communication" within
the meaning of RIPA. If Plod plants a "bug" (RIPA Part 2), what it picks
up IS admissible as evidence.

B: Two people are not in close contact. They exchange messages over
some "medium" (copper, fibre, wireless, Consignia). These constitute
"communications" under RIPA. If Plod intercepts them (we loosely use the
word "tap", whether or not crocodile clips are used), what he picks up
is NOT admissible as evidence.

Now the admissibility rules are clearly the wrong way around. Case A
requires more technical sophistication than case B, and there is a
greater need to preserve the "secret" of how it was done.

OTOH, it is common knowledge that interception in case B can be, and
is, regularly done. The technical means of doing it (sophisticated or
not) are not of particular interest, and bringing evidence before a
court that an intercepted communication contained such and such does
not require divulging the technical details of how it was done (since,
as I said, there is no mystery about where it was obtained). Also, the
quaility of the intercept is likely to be much higher.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5