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.
Advert

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 ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarHelen Quenet 22nd May - 6:23pm
    Wayne, I had an exchange with Norman on Twitter this week. He would NOT vote for the repeal of the hunting. It was a deal...
  • User AvatarHelen Quenet 22nd May - 6:19pm
    During the election I did feel harassed for money, particularly towards the end of the campaign. I also felt that that the money I gave...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 22nd May - 5:59pm
    Great article Hannah and good stuff from Miriam too.
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 22nd May - 5:55pm
    I'm surprised that whether Lib Dems should run negative campaigns is up for debate. Of course they should. So I agree with the article. You...
  • User AvatarDavid-1 22nd May - 5:41pm
    In any case, the result of Alistair's clever ploy was to strengthen the SNP in Scotland, strengthen the Tories in England, and lose the Lib...
  • User AvatarSarah Noble 22nd May - 5:40pm
    FWIW, I have issues with C's in that they seem to be complicit in the PSOE/PP-led stitch up against the Catalan population being able to...
Fri 22nd May 2015
Sat 23rd May 2015
Sun 24th May 2015
Mon 25th May 2015
12:05
Tue 26th May 2015
Wed 27th May 2015
Thu 28th May 2015
Fri 29th May 2015
19:30
Sat 30th May 2015
Sun 31st May 2015
Mon 1st Jun 2015
Wed 3rd Jun 2015
Thu 4th Jun 2015
Sat 6th Jun 2015
Thu 11th Jun 2015
Fri 12th Jun 2015
Sat 13th Jun 2015
Wed 17th Jun 2015
Thu 18th Jun 2015