No hiding place for fly tippers

[Peter Fairbrother]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Watkin Simon wrote:

>> If it's mobile location data, it doesn't matter if that person is the 
>> Chief
>> Executive of the Council THEY CAN'T DO IT.
> 
> I'm sure you're correct, Simon, but could you explain why please?
> 
> According to my reading of RIPA s.21(4) mobile location data (at least 
> to the cell level) is communications data for the purposes of Part II of 
> RIPA, and I understand that at least some Councils can demand 
> communications data.

Adding to my earlier post, I've been looking a little further into this 
and I still can't see why it they can't do it. I can't find anything in 
the various Codes of Practice which would prevent it (although I'm 
unsure whether the ill-defined legal status of the CoP's even means that 
something in them could prevent it, different story), which leaves 
"necessary" and "proportionate".

A good, or at least hard-to-refute, case could be made for necessity 
("We can't do it without the data"), leaving only "proportionate".

And whether it is "proportionate" or not is in the eye of the 
"designated person". There is no check on whether his view of 
proportionality is realistic, or in keeping with the views of society in 
general. Indeed there is no *requirement* that the view of 
proportionality taken be realistic, or in keeping with the views and 
norms of society, the sole question is whether the person signing the 
certificate believes it to be proportionate, s.22(5).

As there are a few people, even in positions of authority, who believe 
"there is no privacy, get used to it", I'm sure that someone with the 
relevant authority could honestly believe it to be proportionate, even 
though most of the rest of us would think it outrageously disproportionate.

So I still can't see why he can't do it - but maybe I'm missing 
something. Simon? Anyone?


-- Peter Fairbrother