RIPA and file-sharing??

[Clive D. W. Feather]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <47A2EECC.28113.5DFE1A7@davidh.spidacom.co.uk>, David Hansen 
<davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>> Failing to deal with a RIPA notice isn't - it wasn't designed to be.  By
>> requiring disclosure it was designed so the CSP no longer had to make the
>> decision to disclose data as happened pre-RIPA under the DPA.
>
>If I had any belief in the "Open Government" provisions down south I
>might ask where the pressure for this change came from. I can see the
>large telecom companies being very keen on such a change.

I can say that I, personally, was pushing for such a change. We even 
contemplated a "29(3) strike" because of the delays in putting RIPA Part 
1 Chapter 2 into force.

I don't apologise for this. Under the DPA, I can only release data to 
the police if it is necessary for the investigation of crime (etc. - 
that's not the exact wording). Since I actually *agree* with David that 
not all policemen and officials are trusty men and true wearing white 
hats (even if the vast majority are), I can't just accept "we need this 
to investigate a crime" as meeting the test. Apart from anything else, 
if *they* are wrong *I* am breaching the DPA.

So there are three choices:
(1) I can refuse to hand over any data at all, frustrating the police in 
the investigation of serious crimes.
(2) I can demand to see all the information the police have so that I 
can judge for myself in each case whether or not they need the requested 
data, or whether they have other potential lines of enquiry so that they 
can do without the data.
(3) We can find some other way to make my disclosure to them legal.
The first two are unacceptable to me, so that leaves the third. And that 
is what Part 1 Chapter 2 was about.

If there was a fourth option, what was it?

Now, once you accept that this should be the case for the police, you do 
have the problem of other organisations, some of which already have 
similar powers. I happen to think that a harmonised regime is better 
than having to deal with hundreds of different legislative rules (and 
remember that the Statute Law Database wasn't public then, so it wasn't 
even practical to find out all the rules). It is then up to Parliament 
to decide where the line is drawn.

- -- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:  <clive@davros.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2

iQEVAwUBR6bUsyNAHP3TFZrhAQHh5QgAjK9Mk9UI3CM1/Q/lytPZ7TgMm2Ayw0Pq
F/kWDfDGPhsuFbGgOZmDoEEZ85C6QNg5m03YElPvB2fXQo+wOpDSdjP99TXVThpZ
+B5+Fr9dCK7aWLX930L0VEnmFwMNRyRM03q8AShcxLXFeaH0C3HvIhXpZUzr/PnV
s1zuw4uT3Qg3djafNN+K+2QBo6EnM7GPQFswFN+udNlaQ/VdJMd6c+6tOiYOkIMk
3AlTILtuynEL9sclNr3HugEmTENnH2F/x0Yt8R3BtOUofyS81E0levVFLOYMdTcG
s8iQsxD0hfnirs4Wa5Zpgv+IejCezTvnDDG1Mas50hPlTcUik+kCQg==
=L7Hm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----