No hiding place for fly tippers

[Roland Perry]

In article <002301c86684$79bf8550$891a313e@Powerstation>, M J D Brown 
<mjdb@dorevale.demon.co.uk> writes

>>>In his apologia published in the Daily Telegraph on Friday 1st 
>>>February Sir Paul Kennedy claims that reports of phones being tapped 
>>>at the rate of 1000 each day are misleading and likely to cause 
>>>unnecessary concern. He bases that assertion on the narrow legalistic 
>>>distinction between interception and the collection of data.
>>
>> Narrow! That just shows how misunderstood this area is.
>
>Not at all.  If we substitute 'eavesdropping' for both 'interception'
>and 'obtaining comms data' the distinction disappears, clearly
>demonstrating that such distinction is merely an artifice of
>legislation.

Doing a reverse DQ on your phone number isn't "eavesdropping".

> If you assert that the nature of information covertly
>obtained makes a distinction between invasion of privacy and that which
>the telephone user expects to be disclosed, then please explain why I
>cannot ask for reverse lookup or the location of mobile phones calling
>my home number.

Even though it's not eavesdropping, there are still laws that protect 
the privacy of individuals from their fellows.

Is it "eavesdropping" that a court can look up a criminal record, but 
the offender's neighbour can't?

>> The man on the bus has a general understanding of what may be involved
>> when tapping his phone, and listening to his conversations.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that they really think that a reverse lookup of
>> their phone number is anything like as intrusive.
>
>Again, a narrow view.  An intelligent man will ask whether he, too, is
>allowed to perform reverse lookup.  On being told that such is only
>permitted to officials he will rightly conclude that reverse lookup is a
>characteristic attribute of eavesdropping.

It's a characteristic of "law enforcement".
-- 
Roland Perry