RIP "consultation"

[James Firth]

> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-ripa> has a document
> one may download.
> 
> The closing date is 10 July 2009.

I feel they need to further separate out all the different "levels" of
surveillance because it's absurd to have so many levels under the same
bracket.

I think from reading opinion in the papers this morning that surveillance
carried out by [council] officers in public on "suspects" in public should
not require the same level of authorisation as e.g. request for "who called
who" communications traffic data.

I was shocked when I read of Fife council installing "recording equipment"
in a neighbouring flat after complaints that noise from the flat infringed
on human rights:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2910962/Coun
cil-uses-anti-terror-rules-to-spy-on-man-with-noisy-wardrobe.html

I'm less shocked to read about council officers using covert surveillance
and following in public places, although this too was to me more shocking in
relation to school catchment areas (i.e. extended surveillance of an
individual) than it is in relation to fly tipping and dog fouling (i.e.
short-term surveillance, or perhaps more correctly "evidence gathering").

Off the top of my head I can see about 5 levels, the most invasive including
covert recording in a private place and communications intercept, and the
least severe being "evidence gathering" from a public place, and each should
in my opinion have different authorisation regimes.

Also the authorisation regimes should be dependent on the applicant body,
e.g. it's fair to allow a police force to internally-authorise (Inspector
level and above) for e.g. "level 4"(?) comms traffic data but a council must
apply for a court warrant.

- Can a truth table be included in legislation to indicate authorisation
needed, with applicant authorities listed on one axis and surveillance
levels across the other?!

Furthermore councils perhaps should not have access at all to "level 5"
surveillance powers, isn't it reasonable for serious crimes to be
investigated by police at the behest of councils, or is this not possible
for civil infringements?

And finally, fans of US TV show The Wire may wonder about US federal rules
on wire taps:
 - The focus on "probably cause"
 - Also on "exhaustion", i.e. the need to prove that the investigation
cannot proceed without use of surveillance - all other investigative
techniques have been "exchausted".

James Firth