RIPA Part III

[Ian G Batten]

On 16 Jun 2006, at 13:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> We accept the testing (for drink driving) of people who have put  
> themselves under suspicion by committing some sort of moving  
> traffic offence. So is it okay to demand the keys to examine  
> further the PC of someone who has put themselves under suspicion by  
> having a small amount of unencrypted illegal imagery discovered there?


I hate it when I am so transparent that my next rhetorical move is  
telegraphed so clearly.

The basic principle (`you have a right of privacy until you do  
something suspicious, at which point you lose all right of privacy')  
is superficially tempting.  However, you would rapidly hit the point  
where a parking offence is ground for search and seizure of  
everything you own.  This principle has been adopted by the Home  
Office already: arrest (not even charging, never mind conviction) for  
any offence is now sufficient grounds for holding samples on the DNA  
database.

ian