"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Roland Perry]

In article <47A6CF8F.21213.22FAF4@davidh.spidacom.co.uk>, David Hansen 
<davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On 3 Feb 2008 at 22:41, Caspar Bowden wrote:
>
>> No, I was typically blunt and specific, and spelled out the difference it
>> would make to capabilities for privacy intrusion, and how the appallingly
>> (deliberately?) vague wording in the published Bill could mean a number of
>> different things. If that was a genuine attempt at drafting clarity, maybe
>> it would have been easier with some specific consultation (with explicit
>> and genuine choices on offer over authorisation mechanisms)
>
>Such consultation is "dangerous". It runs the risk that those outside
>the tent will get the "wrong" answer.

The consultation about RIPA was done in the summer of 1999. Several of 
the usual suspects put in responses. One has been mentioned earlier in 
this thread. That was the time for people to put forward their views. 
eg:  http://www.demon.net/aboutus/pressroom/1999/pr003.html

You may also see references (in Paragraph 7) to the iupf, which I ran, 
and through which a wide selection of "Civil Society" correspondents 
were given an unprecedented insight into the industry's position, and 
the ability to form a deliverable that expressed a genuine consensus 
view. That was subsequently published, and widely promulgated:

https://www.linx.net/good/bcp/privacy-bcp-v1_0.html

The activity that Caspar is seeking to explore at the moment was long 
after that summer 1999 consultation process, after the Bill had been 
published, and in between readings in the House. That's not the time 
when further public consultations are normally done (although you 
undoubtedly recall consultations on the subsequent Codes of Practice). 
Indeed, it's not even the time that quite such significant technical 
modifications are normally introduced. We did well.

I believe it was a tipping point at a time when government was becoming 
much more interested in the Internet, and led to a much deeper 
understanding about the need to "think before drafting" when subsequent 
legislation was introduced. The Comms Bill 2003 being a prime example, 
with the extensive pre-scrutiny process.
-- 
Roland Perry