Why RIPA is flawed

Greg Callus’s excellent post dissects in documented detail some of the problems with the RIPA regulatory mechanism – and why therefore simply extending the range of data that can be accessed under RIPA would be extending the range of data that can be accessed without proper control.

In particular:

Sometimes, there isn’t time for a written request [for access to communications data about someone] because of an imminent threat to life and limb, and so the Urgent Oral procedure kicks in – the SPoC will normally be rudely awoken by a police officer explaining they have (eg) an urgent terrorism/kidnapping situation, and they need a notification to be sent to the CSP urgently. This happened over 31,000 times last year, up from around 21,000 times the year before, and around 87% of police forces were good or satisfactory in their post-haste record keeping which is a statutory requirement if there isn’t paperwork at the time.

How many of these tens of thousands of urgent oral requests went unrecorded? I can’t tell you, because the very presence of an oral procedure with a less-than-perfect score for record-keeping means that there could be any number of applications for private Communications Data that have never been logged.

How can the oral authorisation of interception (without warrant) on this sort of scale possibly be within the intention of Parliament?

[These requests are a burden on communications providers], and they are compensated by the public purse. I’m sure the illicit ‘pings’ ordered by news editors would have looked entirely innocent to the CSPs, and probably would have been billed back to the police force, or the Secretary of State in the normal way.

The irony of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal is that if you’re a taxpayer, you probably helped pay for those exclusives.

Read Greg’s post on RIPA, pinging and more here.

And you can sign Julian Huppert’s petition against Big Brother online snooping here.

* Mark Pack has written 101 Ways To Win An Election and produces a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/27959 for Twitter and emails.

4 Comments

  • Stuart Mitchell 7th Apr '12 - 11:28am

    “The irony of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal is that if you’re a taxpayer, you probably helped pay for those exclusives.”

    The other irony is that those NOTW hacks who were sent to prison were convicted of offences under… RIPA. Without RIPA, their actions would have been entirely lawful.

  • Andrew Shuttlewood 7th Apr '12 - 12:50pm

    @Stuart Mitchell

    Previous to RIPA was the Interception of Communications Act 1985

    “(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
    (a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
    (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/56/section/1/enacted

    (Note, link is to enacted – the law was obviously mostly replaced by RIPA)

  • Why can’t these judges use an electronic system to give their yay or nay? Encrypted email for example. Or it would be technologically feasible to record the phone conversation where the case is discussed and permission granted.

  • Stuart Mitchell 8th Apr '12 - 10:21am

    @Andrew
    Though it is not clear that the ICA would have covered mobile communications voicemail (see http://www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/2011/KlugIntercepComms.pdf).

    One of the reasons RIPA was brought in was to cover then-new forms of communication (in much the same way that the government now wants to extend RIPA to cover more on-line activity).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarGF 31st Jul - 2:22pm
    Lib Dems are a remarkably trusting lot. I was expecting that someone else would comment on an obvious problem with the three "key protections". 1....
  • User AvatarGF 31st Jul - 2:01pm
    Richard Dean - the shale itself is not a pollutant, not even when it contains a substantial amount of hydrocarbons and comes right to the...
  • User AvatarRaddiy 31st Jul - 1:58pm
    @Malcolm Todd I was questioning the integrity of the analysis, based on a basic absence of rigour, especially in light of the fact the comment...
  • User AvatarJohn Dunn 31st Jul - 1:53pm
    Speaking as a boomer I think George Potter has a better view of the situation. As a semi-apology to George, I feel that 'we boomers',...
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 31st Jul - 1:50pm
    Clegg's campaign on this issue is just one more big error of judgment. Clegg argues that being in government is all-important, and that it is...
  • User AvatarCharlie 31st Jul - 1:43pm
    Malcom Todd What you are saying is that Israel should 1. Rely on "Iron Dome " only and ignore the stress firing rockets at Israel...