Fwd: URGENT Re: Meeting request re RIPA review

[Jim Killock]

Dear all,

If anyone here would be interested in coming to a meeting with the Home Office about the RIPA interception review, please let me know

Thank you

Jim

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "RIPA - Consent and Sanction Consultation"
> Date: 29 November 2010 14:27:06 GMT
> To: "'Jim Killock'" 
> Subject: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED RE: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED RE: URGENT Re: Meeting request re RIPA review
> 
>  NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
> Dear Mr Killock
> 
> Further to your enquiry we have reflected on your request and would like to invite representatives of civil society groups to discuss the RIPA consultation document.  Naturally, it will not be possible to meet everyone but we could meet 8-10 representative bodies (of no more than 10 people). You wrote on behalf of or together with a number of bodies to Baroness Neville-Jones. If there are groups beyond those you have already included in your correspondence that we might consider inviting then please let us know. 
> 
> When we have finalised the list we will return to the invitees with a view to holding a meeting on Monday or Tuesday next week.
> 
> As we previously advised the consultation has been extended to 17 December.
> 
> Regards
> 
> RIPA Team 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Killock [mailto:jimkillock at googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Jim Killock
> Sent: 26 November 2010 16:55
> To: RIPA - Consent and Sanction Consultation
> Subject: Re: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED RE: URGENT Re: Meeting request re RIPA review
> 
> Dear RIPA team,
> 
> I wrote to Pauline Neville Jones yesterday, in a joint letter from ourselves, copied below. I am still appalled that you are not seeking to engage with the public and civil society on this. You state:
> 
> "We are focusing on those parties directly affected by the changes to the extent that those parties would be subject to the civil sanction or directly concerned with it, or are directly responsible, where lawful interception is taking place, for ensuring that consent has been obtained to the interception."
> 
> I would like to know in what way, for instance, the tens of thousands of BT customers whose communications were illegally intercepted are not "directly affected" by this change to the law; or indeed, anyone who might be an ISP customer and wish to seek redress.
> 
> The fact that you do not seem to take the view that this has wide repercussions for the public who therefore deserve to be consulted is extremely concerning. 
> 
> I again request a meeting, at which all civil society groups can attend and engage with you.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Jim Killock
> 
> 
> Jim Killock
> Executive Director
> Open Rights Group
> +44 (0) 7894 498 127
> Skype: jimkillock
> http://twitter.com/jimkillock
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org/
> 
> 
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/letter-to-pauline-neville-jones-re-ripa-consultation
> 
> Pauline Neville-Jones 
> Home Office                         
> 2 Marsham Street                                                                                                25 November 2010
> London SW1P 4DF
> Dear Pauline Neville-Jones,
> 
> RIPA Consultation
> 
> Your Department recently issued a consultation on changes to RIPA, which we believe are very important to UK privacy regulation. These changes are meant to answer deficiencies in regulation of private interception of communications, such as took place to tens of thousands of BT customers in the trials of advertising technology from the company Phorm.[i]
> 
> Unfortunately, your Department issued this consultation with only one month to respond, instead of the usual three months as indicated in government guidelines, and did not inform and are refusing to meet civil society groups. We have no doubt that industry groups have been both met and informed.
> 
> The guidelines, maintained by BIS, state:
> 
> Moreover, deviation from the Code will, at times, be unavoidable when running a formal, written, public consultation. It is recommended that departments be open about such deviations, stating the reasons for the deviation and what measures will be employed to make the exercise as effective as possible in the circumstances.[ii]
> 
> To our knowledge none of this has happened.
> 
> We would therefore like to ask you firstly to extend the deadline for the consultation by at least a month to allow civil society groups to respond properly, and secondly to instruct your officials to give civil society groups the same level of access as industry groups on this matter. Please could you also instruct your Department to advertise the Consultation on their website.
> 
> Finally, given the urgency of this, we would like you to instruct your Department to arrange a meeting with your officials as soon as possible to discuss this matter before the consultation is closed.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Jim Killock, Open Rights Group
> Simon Davies, Privacy International
> Phil Booth, No2ID
> Terri Dowty, ARCHRights
> Dr Eric Metcalfe, Justice
> Helen Wallace, Genewatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended 
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
> If you have received this email in error please return it to the address 
> it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.
> 
> This email message has been swept for computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> 
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20101129/7045bb02/attachment-0001.htm>