No hiding place for fly tippers

[PeteM]

Richard Clayton wrote  on 4-02-08 12:43:
> -----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" -- 

I see that as a benefit. Properly administered, a non-scalable regime 
would force the police to keep the number of requests down to what the 
courts could handle. There doesn't seem to be any effective limit on 
them at the moment.


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...)

Since you mention it, that's another iniquity that should be remedied. 
However, I guess these days it's so very passe' to expect the police to 
produce a good reason before they invade someone's home, perhaps 
following it up with shooting him in the chest or confiscating his 
equipment and holding it for two years.

> 
> 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.

Of course you can make any procedure sound over-elaborate by talking 
about reverse lookups. They aren't all this is about though.

-- 
Pete Mitchell