RIPA Part III

[David Hansen]

On 16 Jun 2006 at 12:27, Owen Lewis wrote:

> No one likes searches. They are, at the
> very least, intrusive, upsetting and liable to make one's neighbours
> curtains twitch. Nevertheless, by general consent we accept that search
> - by force majeure if necessary - is required where there is a prima
> facie case on implication in a serious crime. This is what the
> procedures for the issue of warrants has been about for a *very* long
> time.

The principle is well established. Those bods who wish to undertake a 
physical search present information to someone outside their 
organisation and gain the approal of this outsider. For all the many 
faults of this system the public have some confidence in it. The bods 
who attacked houses in Forest Gate recently were prevented from 
"holding" the victims of this attack for as long as they wanted by 
these outsiders.

Had the Home Office used the same principle in RIP then there would 
have been less opposition. Instead they, or more likely those pulling 
their strings, decided to ignore this long established principle and 
instead come up with the unacceptable mess we now see. There is no 
presenting of information to an outsider. Instead there are supposed to 
be a handful of steps within an organisation, most of which rely on the 
"belief" of some bod.

The Home Office didn't need to do this and the comparisons with the far 
less intrusive physical search were made to them at the time. However, 
for whatever reason, the Home Office ignored this and made the more 
intrusive electronic search subject to far less oversight than the less 
intrusive physical search. They can reap what they sewed.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54