Child abuse unit paying for data

[Roland Perry]

In article <H11irOGOYydJFAkh@highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton 
<richard@highwayman.com> writes

>>But that goes well beyond what the article on the website says, where he
>>seemed to be happy to pay to get details of perpetrators, but not to get
>>details of victims.
>
>No.
>
>Having listened to the Today piece and read the BBC news report, he's
>saying that he thinks the police should pay if they are tracking down a
>murderer who dropped an email at the crime scene (he's disrupting the
>normal business of ISPs by getting them to help out), but that since
>there wouldn't be online paedophile activity if there wasn't an
>"online", then the ISPs should view the resultant data requests as part
>of the cost of doing business.

Yes, I was (mis?-)reading "mainstream criminal activity" to include 
paedophiles, but the main thrust of his enquiries seem to be 
preventative "working to prevent harm".

>This is superficially attractive, but it hasn't happened in the UK
>because there was a payment regime in place long ago for the telcos and
>that has been carried forward for the ISPs.
>
>The payment scheme is "cost recovery", which sounds fine because the
>telcos and ISPs cannot make a profit from the activity. However, it also
>means that there is no incentive on them to invest in order to reduce
>costs -- so there would be a strong economic argument for a flat rate
>payment across the industry, and if that meant that some companies made
>money because they were efficient then so be it.

I have feeling that if there was a consistent price list, then all 
telcos and ISPs would feel happier charging according to that list; 
whereas today there may be many who either charge nothing, or charge 
much less. As you say above, it's not as if this charging regime is new, 
it was inherited into RIPA and has been discussed regularly (more 
frequently than annually) for a decade.

-- 
Roland Perry