No hiding place for fly tippers

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <nPBfPiAALwpHFA6s@kalahari.uninhabited.net>, Roger Hayter
<roger@hayter.org> writes

>What's wrong with the "let's refuse requests for our customers' private 
>information unless backed up by a court order" approach?

Of course a s22 notice does have a statutory basis... so to that extent
the telecommunications companies are doing the right thing. However,
that' not what you meant -- the reasons given for s22 paperwork rather
than having the judiciary examine each and every request come down to:

a) it doesn't "scale" -- this is a significant issue for the courts who
would have to find the time to do the extra paperwork. It also means
that they're unlikely to look hard at the requests, so the gain may be
pretty limited. Try the sums -- I suggest it will be at least one order
of magnitude more time than the granting of search warrants (remembering
that most search warrants are automatic these days...)

b) the timescales on court orders (and the penalties for missing those
timescales) are relatively tough -- this is a significant issue for the
communications providers, some of whom have very substantial backlogs of
requests to respond to.

c) it adds extra delay in cases where time is of the essence -- such as
silent 999 calls, and other life at risk scenarios.

You can make a very reasonable case for court orders for data types that
include itemised bills and for location data (the arguments about
timeliness is only significant in a small number of cases, and the
existing Code of Practice essentially works in retrospect anyway, even
for the current controls). These are only a handful of the total number
of s22 notices, so "scale" is much less of an issue.

But requiring court involvement (likely to be magistrates anyway rather
than people in red robes and wigs) for reverse directory inquiries
(which are at the lower end of intrusiveness) makes limited sense and
most of the people involved actively dislike the prospect for very
practical reasons -- viz: it's not that they oppose it because they
think it will prevent abuse; and I rather doubt it would.

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBR6cIb5oAxkTY1oPiEQKZrACgyKPJZeM6R+2ROFO9IyhQ0yybejYAoKba
HnI66PQe/fjoEqHzZxph08r3
=i0pJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----