No hiding place for fly tippers

[M J D Brown]

In his message of Sunday February 03 2008 at 5:58 PM, Roland Perry takes 
our debate forward:

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

The dictionary definition of 'eavesdropping' is 'secretly listening to 
private conversation'.  I see no logical distinction between 
conversations as between humans and the data words exchanged by their 
telephones as as essential and contiguous part of beginning such 
dialogue.

>> 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?

Quite so!  The distinction is an artifice of legislation designed to 
allow law enforcement to do things that are unacceptable or illegal when 
attempted by private individuals.

>>> 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".

Absolutely!  Only a few people would argue that law enforcement should 
not have powers denied to ordinary citizens, and that group does not 
include me.

The point is that the user provides dialling information and position 
data (if a mobile connection) to the Telco for the purpose of obtaining 
a conversation with another person.  Law enforcement processing of that 
data for a purpose for which it was not provided would be unlawful 
_except_ for the getout provisions of the DPA, RIPA, etc.  Hence my 
initial observation that the distinction between intercepting 
converstions and gathering comms data is solely a legal artifice.

Applying different words to two distinct things does not make them 
different by mere assertion.  My case rests.

Mike.