No hiding place for fly tippers

[Roland Perry]

In article <003801c86711$4e7710b0$891a313e@Powerstation>, M J D Brown 
<mjdb@dorevale.demon.co.uk> writes
>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.

When data is disclosed under RIPA Pt1 Ch2 it is not as a result of 
listening to a dialogue, or a conversation, or any other such word you 
might find in a dictionary. It involves getting a copy of something 
which is stored.

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

Good.

>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.

They can also get it through other legal means, like court orders. But 
that doesn't seem to advance the debate much.

> Hence my initial observation that the distinction between intercepting 
>converstions and gathering comms data is solely a legal artifice.

It doesn't follow at all. They are separate activities whose only common 
feature is that they involve law enforcement and CSPs (and the same 
Act). As I've said before, perhaps there would be more clarity if they 
were in separate Acts.
-- 
Roland Perry