RIPA Part III

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of David Hansen
> Sent: 16 June 2006 13:39
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: RIPA Part III
>
>
> 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.

If I follow you correctly, are we not presently presented with an
opportunity to state how each of us thinks that the balance should be
redressed?

Owen