Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Thu Nov 5 12:56:20 GMT 2015
<AM2PR07MB05955F5A515FDC8B44394CF1AA290 at AM2PR07MB0595.eurprd07.prod.outlo
ok.com>, Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at jisc.ac.uk> writes
>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.
The whole point of RIPA was that disclosure was required *if you
happened to have* the data.
If you didn't have it, all the authorities could do is ask you to start
gathering it for specific individuals.
The various Data Retention schemes (of which this is merely the most
recent) had their own lists of things which communications providers
should retain speculatively for all subscribers.
And yes, I agree that until now those measures have had much shorter
lists of "thing the retain" than RIPA has of "things to disclose it you
happen to have them".
More information about the ukcrypto