IPT remit was: Phorm again

[Roland Perry]

In article <f7u7m4N$qh1HFwfe@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Supposing that what Phorm, BT etc are proposing actually is
>>>>>illegal -  and I can't see how it could not be - who should the
>>>>>crime be reported to?
>[...]
>>He has no authority to investigate interceptions by IPSs etc. Nor does
>>the Tribunal.
>
>Actually, I'm not sure about that. s.65 is terribly written, but:
>
>(2)(b) to consider and determine any complaints made to them which, in
>accordance with subsection (4), are complaints for which the Tribunal
>is the appropriate forum;

The Metropolitan Police Authority, in the matter of Operation Helios
reported:
        1. In November 2006 the Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave a
        ruling that the MPS had intercepted phone calls made on its own
        system in the course of the covert investigation known as
        Operation Helios, without lawful authority. [1]

        2. The Tribunal has sole jurisdiction over alleged breaches of
        the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Its rulings are
        equivalent to judgements of the High Court. <etc>

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/cop/2007/070201/12.htm

Meanwhile, this is what the IPT themselves have to say on the issue:

http://www.ipt-uk.com/default.asp?sectionID=1
http://www.ipt-uk.com/default.asp?sectionID=1&chapter=1

So it turns out they believe they can only investigate improper activity
by one of the regulated public authorities. Therefore the paragraph (2)
above might be better drafted as "The Tribunal has sole jurisdiction
over alleged breaches of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
BY THE POLICE SERVICE (and other public authorities)".

[1] And not in this instance "keep up the good work chaps".
-- 
Roland Perry