A proper law

[David_Biggins@usermgmt.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Watkin Simon [mailto:Simon.Watkin@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
> Sent: 05 March 2003 15:50
> To: 'ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk'
> Subject: A proper law
> 
> 
> > From: David Hansen [mailto:davidh@spidacom.co.uk]
> > Sent: 05 March 2003 14:23
> > 
> > And the Home Office wants to introduce compulsory identity 
> cards! Why 
> > can't they do something useful, like getting rid of RIP and 
> replacing 
> > it with a proper law in this area?
> 
> Can you describe what would constitute a proper law?
> 

One that 

a) Required a warrant granted by a judge for ALL interception of a target's
communications in any form.

b) Placed adequate and clearly described limits on what constituted
"proportional" surveillance/intrusion.

c) Placed punishment for abuse high up the list of considerations, rather
than an afterthought.

d) Placed restriction of who could intercept communication as more important
than allowing the government agencies wide and unfettered access.

e) Did not allow such cockups as the complaints department being
understaffed enough that it could not open its mails.

f) Required that the overview of numbers of requests for different types of
surveillance, interception etc., for each government department, down to
county level, be made available in a single place, clearly and
unequivocally, on a regular basis, say each quarter.

Might do as a starting point.

I'm sure that others here will come up with many more.

Dave