Interception Modernisation Programme

[David Hansen]

On 11 Jul 2008 at 13:37, Richard Clayton wrote:

> The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of
> Spithead):
> 
>   The objective of the interception modernisation programme (IMP) is to
>   maintain the UK's lawful intercept and communications data
>   capabilities in the changing communications environment. It is a
>   cross-government programme, led by the Home Office, to ensure that our
>   capability to lawfully intercept and exploit data when fighting crime
>   and terrorism

Is "terrorism" no longer a crime? I must have missed this change.

Of course we all know that the real aim is to fight those suspected of 
anything which the bods inside the tent don't like. 

RIP Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 5(3) gives "the reasons" for interception 
as:

"(a) in the interests of national security;

"(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime;

"(c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the 
United Kingdom;"

All of these are vague enough to allow officials to do almost anything 
they feel like. The last one is no-doubt particularly useful to those 
attacking animal rights campaigners, who are often branded by party 
politicians as affecting the economy. I have heard similar statements 
from party politicians about GM crop campaigners and environmentalists 
in general, plus a number of other groups. It was no surprise that they 
picked on animal rights people to use threatening words and behaviour 
towards over keys.

Of course all campaigners are now "terrorists", at least when officials 
don't like them. That includes people reading out the names of the dead 
at the cenotaph in London, Walter Wolfgang and so on.

I was delighted to discover that the English police presumably consider 
me a phase 1 domestic extremist campaigner, for writing letters to 
organisations. It just goes to show how far these bods have lost the 
plot and how desperate they have become to inflict their views on us 
<http://www.netcu.org.uk/protection/domesticextremisttactics.jsp>.

One may wonder who the domestic extremist campaigners really are. The 
photograph on that page does show masked people who have gone equipped 
for  violence. These people all have the letters POLICE written on 
their clothes. Presumably this is to allow rioters to identify each 
other more easily.

Neither have members of any stop the war or environmental group shot a 
passenger on a train seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, 
after being specially hyped up at a briefing and using ammunition which 
is illegal to use in war. Were members of either group to do so you may 
be sure that the organisation "investigating" the crime would not start 
its "investigation" off by putting out a press release saying what a 
wonderful job the group was doing and how it should be supported, not 
bother to put in an appearance at the crime scene for four days and 
then whitewash the whole thing.


On communications data RIP part 1 chapter 2 section 22(2) gives the 
following carte blanche for grabbing data:

"(a) in the interests of national security;

"(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing 
disorder;

"(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;

"(d) in the interests of public safety;

"(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

"(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or 
other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government 
department;

"(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or 
any damage to a personīs physical or mental health, or of mitigating 
any injury or damage to a personīs physical or mental health; or

"(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which 
is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by 
the Secretary of State."

Even without (h) it is difficult to think of any "reason" which would 
fall out of (a) to (g). (h) is just to make sure.


Mr West therefore lied to the Westminster parliament when he claimed 
that it was only for "fighting crime and terrorism".


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54