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

[Roland Perry]

In article <61E52F3A5532BE43B0211254F13883AE97FD32E3 at EXC001>, Andrew 
Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> writes
>> There's no DPA 1998 exemption for "life at risk/preventing injury", 
>>whereas DPA 1984 had 34(8). It was also initially overlooked in RIPA 
>>(I  think it was amended fairly recently), because the police were 
>>only  able  to get information if investigating a crime, and being in 
>>danger isn't  a  crime.
>
>I think the amendment is The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Additional Functions and Amendment) Order 2006 (SI
>2006/1878) or The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2010 (SI 2010/480). The latter says:
>
>2.  The following additional purposes are specified for the purposes of section 22(2) of the Act (to the extent that they do not fall within
>paragraphs (a) to (g) of that provision)-
>(a)to assist investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice;
>(b)where a person ("P") has died or is unable to identify themselves because of a physical or mental condition-
>(i)to assist in identifying P, or
>(ii)to obtain information about P's next of kin or other persons connected with P or about the reason for P's death or condition.
>
>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/480/article/2/made]

As long ago as 2002 the police were complaining that they couldn't 
identify bodies by doing reverse-DQ on the mobile found on the body, 
because "being dead wasn't a crime".

I don't see them making much progress on the "life at risk" element.
-- 
Roland Perry