Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Andrew Cormack Andrew.Cormack at jisc.ac.uk
Thu Nov 5 09:22:34 GMT 2015

Can't remember whether it was technically "found illegal", or whether the ECJ vaporised the Data Retention Directive first. But there was a lot of concern that the purposes for which data could be disclosed under RIPA were wider than the ones for which it could be retained under the DRD/DRR.

IPBill "fixes" that by having the same long list of purposes for both retention and disclosure. E.g. both are now permitted for "crime" rather than requiring "serious crime" as the old retention regs did


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 04 November 2015 20:09
> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
> In article <563A428C.7010102 at zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother
> <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk> writes
> >Otherwise it seems largely to repeat the (already-found illegal) status
> >quo of DRIPA, RIPA 2000, Police Act, ACTSA 2001, JSA 2013, Intelligence
> >Services Act 1994 etc
> JOOI, what has been already-found illegal about RIPAs rules for
> disclosure of comms data?
> --
> Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list