Child abuse unit paying for data

[Roland Perry]

In article <EnLCPhC3QxdJFAUI@highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton=20
<richard@highwayman.com> writes
>you can issue s22 notices for victim information under
>several headings:
>
>  (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing
>      disorder;

That's before you have a specific victim to support.

>  (d) in the interests of public safety;
>  (e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

I'm sure we shouldn't think this allows "fishing expeditions" instigated=20
to uncover previously undetected risks to public safety and health (eg=20
grooming activity).

>  (g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or
>      any damage to a person=E2=80=99s physical or mental health,

If it's prevented, no victim exists.

 >      or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person=E2=80=99s physi=
cal or
 >      mental health

is this sub-sub-section still covered by the "in an emergency", or does=20
it stand alone?

>if you find a child dead from being abused, then a crime will
>have taken place -- and hence CEOP can inquire about the victim

Luckily this is rare (for the sort of "abuse" that CEOP seems to be=20
involved in - they don't have a mandate for the "baby P" kind of case,=20
do they?)

>If they are using DPA s29(2), then the ISP will report CEOP to the Home
>Office unit with a request for them to be re-educated. They might well
>also make a formal complaint to the Interception Commissioner since the
>Code of Practice will be being ignored.
>
>Since you're just guessing, I suggest you apologise for the slur on
>CEOP's character !

I was guessing that the kind of activity CEOP was claiming to want to do=20
was perhaps outside the scope of RIPA s22 (and hence suggesting a more=20
legitimate avenue, not a less legitimate one - if things are outside the=20
scope of RIPA there's no cause for complaint to the Home Office if other=20
methods are used.) I must go back and read the Codes of Practice again,=20
if you tell me I'm being unduly pessimistic about the scope of s22.
--=20
Roland Perry