'Today' considers data retention and IMP

[Roland Perry]

In article <5STdCrMJPnaJFAoQ@highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton 
<richard@highwayman.com> writes

>>with at least a decade's experience of access to comms
>>data, it was decided that the provisions of the Data Retention Directive
>>were sufficiently useful, some of the time, to be worth it.
>
>Are you sure it wasn't specific pressure groups within the LEAs seizing
>the moment, post Madrid and post 7/7, to push forward their agenda
>(which had stalled since the passing of ATCS in 2001).

It was, but those pressure groups must have thought the effort was 
"worth it".

>The main point of the Directive is to produce a consistent retention
>regime across the whole continent... if the foreigners hadn't messed
>with the Home Office's pristine wording (and Clarke swallowed it, in the
>interests in getting it adopted ASAP) then it would have made little
>difference here in the UK.

I think it was done via Brussels just as much as a policy-laundering 
exercise, as a specific desire to get our EU partners doing the same 
thing.

>> And
>>following on from that the same decisions about measures within IMP.
>
>You're surely not suggesting that IMP is "worth it" ?

It must be to someone (in terms of getting better results), as otherwise 
there wouldn't be the pressure to push it through. nb This is different 
to it being "worth it" to UK plc as a whole, but that's a different sum, 
and a debate we need to have (a real debate).

>If they've done a realistic cost/benefit analysis then they must have
>some spectacular benefits in mind -- will we like such a society?

If it's used to combat traditional crime, maybe, but probably not when 
there's a political overtone.

-- 
Roland Perry