RIP consultation responses

[James Firth]

What a coincidence.

This draft legislation appears at the halfway stage in the legislative
sausage machine on the very same day the CPS announces it's (much delayed)
decision not to prosecute Phorm/BT over the trials:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8437978/BT-and-Phorm-escape-prose
cution-for-secret-wiretaps.html

James Firth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Clayton
> Sent: 08 April 2011 14:16
> To: UKcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RIP consultation responses
> 
> 
> The Home Office has published the responses to the consultation on
> amending the RIP Act 2000 so as to address the concerns that it was not
> a faithful transposition of the EU Directive (viz: to fix the problem
> that Whitehall continued to protest that the Phorm system was lawful).
> 
> Main page:
> 
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/ripa-effect-
> lawful-intercep/>
> 
> Responses:
> 
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/ripa-effect-
> lawful-intercep/ripa-lawful-intercept-responses?view=Binary>
> 
> The revised form of statutory instrument:
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111510339/contents
> 
> --
> richard                                                   Richard
> Clayton
> 
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
> 11 Nov 1755