"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Caspar Bowden]

>From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.=
greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
..
>>>Liberty's eye was off the ball, in this instance, iirc.

>...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.

Think that's a fair comment generally, but worth noting that they criticize=
d the notion that traffic and transaction data represented a lower category=
 of intrusion than interception, in the sense that a lower level of intrusi=
on would require lesser justification and safeguards under ECHR.

..
>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.

Likewise. It was just a shame that officials felt they could only negotiate=
 wording with industry rather than civil society.

It was a frantic time, but in my view it was only the palpable loss of conf=
idence in the Lords' chamber that the govt. understood their own proposals,=
 over several stages of surprisingly detailed cross-examination in debate, =
that forced a change.

N.B. someone wrote to me that...

<<Reportedly, the reason is that these constitute "sensitive" personal data=
, which ISTR was one of the arguments FIPR made 8 years ago.>>

...would have been better phrased <<these may contain "sensitive" personal =
data>>, which I am happy to acknowledge.
--
Caspar Bowden