BBC News - 'Fresh proposals' planned over cyber-monitoring

[Francis Davey]

2013/5/23 Ben Liddicott <ben at liddicott.com>

>
> Well, that's a good summary of the argument, but not actually a good
> reason, and it's not actually what happens.
>
> It's not what happens because the vast majority of such requests are for
> things which could perfectly well have waited to the next working day and
> been dealt with in bulk.
>
> It's not a good reason firstly because there is no technical reason why a
> court order has to be slow. IANAL, but AFAIK a court order or warrant can
> be given by telephone, fax or email if need be - I don't believe there is
> any legal requirement for the judge to be in the same room as the
> petitioner - and if there is, why not just change that rule for emergencies?
>

You can get an order over the telephone. There's a 24/7 "duty judge" system
that means you can always get a judge (possibly out of bed) for an urgent
order. Clearly you have to have a pretty good reason to do that but the
system is there.

If this was going to happen a lot then I am sure the court service could
(if it was told to) set up a system that made this work.

-- 
Francis Davey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20130523/81865020/attachment-0001.html>