RIP article

[Roland Perry]

In article <2A62ED587E434C1D844722A9F7285562 at enigma>, Ian Johnson 
<Ian.Johnson at uwe.ac.uk> writes
>>What we probably need is to split the Act up into different
>>pieces, so people no longer get confused between the police
>>tapping the phones of serious organised criminals and local
>>authorities writing down the phone number off the side of a
>>van they've just seen do some fly-tipping.
>
>Yes
>(eg How could you
>>ever get the latter judicially authorised on a case by case
>>basis in advance?)
>
>But the intrusive bit in this is the reverse-lookup. That could
>easily be subjected to court oversight before permission was granted.

The same sort if argument applies to the difference between data 
retention and the disclosure of that data [1]. But some are sceptical 
that once collected you can keep the lid on it. And where do you stop - 
although not comms data, do you get judge to sign off every time you 
look up a registration plate at DVLA when you want to issue a parking 
ticket?

[1] Or between having your DNA on file, and it being actively compared 
during an investigation.

-- 
Roland Perry