"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Caspar Bowden]

>From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.=
greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
...
>The activity that Caspar is seeking to explore at the moment was long
>after that summer 1999 consultation process,

AFAIR there was nothing *publicly* known about the authorisation mechanism,=
 safeguards, and crucial legal definitions between June 1999 and the public=
ation of RIPA on Feb 9th 2000. The bland and brief analysis of responses (w=
hich Simon already quoted) just said
http://web.archive.org/web/20000302022700/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd=
/iocresp.htm#Chapter%2010
"there was an almost equally balanced split between those who welcomed the =
inclusion of this aspect of communications in the IOCA regime and those who=
 felt that it should be left separate and in the Data Protection Act regime=
. Various suggestions were made as to who should authorise requests: intern=
al to agency; at Secretary of State level; or by a judge. Some CSPs felt th=
at requests for communications data should be more tightly controlled"

The consultation paper itself June 1999 said this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817040911/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/interb=
an.htm#Chapter%2010

<<<<<<Chapter 10: PROVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS DATA

10.1 Because the analysis of communications data can provide much informati=
on about the way in which people live their lives, this has led to concerns=
 that the level of intrusion into an individual's privacy may be too great =
and that the ability of the law enforcement, security and intelligence agen=
cies to access this data should be regulated.

10.2 The Government believes that there is a balance to be struck between t=
he privacy of the individual and the needs of society as a whole to be prot=
ected from crime. It is right that the police have access to communications=
 data when necessary in order to prevent or detect crime, but only where th=
is level of intrusion is justified, taking into account the lower level of =
intrusion that access to such data brings

10.3 In recent years, advances in telecommunications have meant that the am=
ount of data held by communications service providers has increased, making=
 the information much more useful as an investigative tool. But so has the =
potential for privacy infringements. Although accessing a person's communic=
ations data is not as intrusive as interception, it clearly still represent=
s an interference with the privacy of the individual. The Government theref=
ore believes it is time to put in place a statutory framework for authorisi=
ng access to communications data.

10.4 The Government proposes to introduce a statutorily based framework to =
regulate access to communications data by investigating bodies. This will l=
ay down the purposes for which an application for access to communications =
data may be made, the minimum standards of information which must be includ=
ed within an application and the factors which must be taken into account b=
y the authorising official. We also propose to introduce strict statutory r=
equirements regarding the handling, storage and retention of communications=
 data. It is intended that these measures will be laid out in detail in the=
 publicly available Code of Practice (see paragraph 7.16).

10.5 The proposed purposes for which data access may be authorised are:

    * for the prevention or detection of crime;
    * for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
    * in the interests of national security;
    * for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United=
 Kingdom;
    * for the urgent prevention of injury or damage to health; and
    * for the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposit=
ion of a similar nature.

10.6 Where a request has been properly authorised in accordance with the ar=
rangements outlined above, the communications service provider will be requ=
ired to provide the specified material within a reasonable period.

Safeguards

10.7 The disclosure of data falls within the remit of the Data Protection A=
ct 1984 (soon to be replaced by the Data Protection Act 1998), therefore th=
e oversight and complaints mechanisms will continue to be provided under th=
is legislation.


The Government welcomes comments on the proposals outlined in this Chapter,=
 particularly from Communication Service Providers and bodies which make us=
e of communications data.
>>>>>>>
--
Caspar Bowden