"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Roland Perry]

In article
<2298D4476FA2F44591690E423F07C37B11F3AFC331@EA-EXMSG-C333.europe.corp.mic
rosoft.com>, Caspar Bowden <casparb@microsoft.com> writes

>>>I did ask how big a part Liberty played in writing it and the silence
>>>was deafening.
>
>>Liberty's eye was off the ball, in this instance, iirc.
>
>Liberty's consultation response is at http://web.archive.org/web/200008
>15071512/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/liberty.pdf (see section 3.3 for
>what they said about comms data)

They "invite the government to take the opportunity [to introduce
RIPA]", with "no objection in principle to the extension of the
interception regime", but do indeed quibble over a lot of the detail. My
remark was aimed mainly at my recollection of their involvement in the
subsequent lobbying process (the consultation responses were just the
opening shots). I could be wrong.

>>FIPR, on the
>>other hand, did make a lot of noise, and initiated the process of
>>amending one clause whose effect was to reduce opportunities for
>>intrusion.
>
>http://www.fipr.org/rip/parliament.html ('fraid Hansard links dead)
>
>and for the turning point see (Col 131) http://www.publications.parliam
>ent.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo000619/text/00619-28.htm
>
>The upshot was a govt. drafted amendment inserting the rider to S.21(6)

        Lord Bassam: "We are working on the issue with the help of the
        industry, for which we are very grateful. We think that we can
        come up with a solution."

And I worked with him and his chums; and we did.

That quote was from the 19th June, I still recall the long phone
conversation I had a couple of weeks earlier [1], with one particular
official, which finally got the issue past the tipping point.

Caspar, I'm grateful too; your encouragement helped me stick with it.

(And to Lord Cope on a related matter).

[1] "my officials are in active dialogue with industry"
-- 
Roland Perry