"Snoopers Charter" OR "National Security"? (1 Viewer)

[Paddywack]

I hope you don't mind me wondering what is a an ICO from a LA to a RIPA. Abbreviations are all very good, if everyone understands them........

Sorry - early meal out and a couple of scoops so dropped into TLA, sorry three letter acronym mode.

ICO = Information Commissioners Office - the ones supposed to be watching the snoopers or all persuasions.
RIPA = Regulation of Investagatory Powers Act 2000 regulates the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was ostensibly introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption. Largely misused to spy on the public.
LA = local authority

 

[Langtoftlad]

Information Commissioner Office
Local Authority
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)
I assume ???

 

[Langtoftlad]

Beat me to it @fastpat Sorry to hear of your difficulties so a 'like' to your post is inappropriate.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Paddywack]

So what is changing? Only the quantity of data stored that is all.

Er Safe Harbor (sic) is a bit of a game changer is it not?

 

[Don Quixote]

Information Commissioner Office
Local Authority
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)
I assume ???

The word assume comes from the latin words Broken Link Removed, Broken Link Removed and Broken Link Removed, and, according to ancient scholars, its meaning, roughly translated is "to make an ass out of u and me". Many people post/write abbreviations assuming the reader will know what they mean.

 

[Don Quixote]

RIPA is one of the most misused powers employed currently by the state in its various forms, just ask any journalist who has been forced to disclose their sources of information.

I also have experience of RIPA from its miss-use by a local authority from personal experience and have an ICO judgement in my favour to prove this, do the "authorities" care? No, apparently I should be happy with an apology from the LA - no one sacked or held to account. And its an authority very close to you Graham!

@fastpat, I would not have liked to have been where you were with this one. A lot of hassle now I understand your post. Another case of "big brother"

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

We should be very wary of

• All encompassing laws
• Poorly targeted laws

Once a law is enshrined, its highly unlikely to be repealed (although further legislation may be introduced to make corrections rather than get rid of a bad law)
Eg the law banning hoverboards & segways on public highways was passed in 1835 apparently. Those lawmakers couldn't possibly have envisioned this.

 

[Langtoftlad]

The word assume comes from the latin words Broken Link Removed, Broken Link Removed and Broken Link Removed, and, according to ancient scholars, its meaning, roughly translated is "to make an ass out of u and me". Many people post/write abbreviations assuming the reader will know what they mean.

Was I wrong?

 

[Munchie]

If they want to investigate why I Google "why do I fart more as I get older" good luck to them!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

Now that is what I call. Dropping the pebble in the pool. to see how far the ripples actually go. Off to watch "The last Kingdom".

Pete

 

[Langtoftlad]

If they want to investigate why I Google "why do I fart more as I get older" good luck to them!

...until you're found guilty of causing "climate change" through self incrimination ...

 

[Munchie]

I don't really care as I am not paranoid! Just persisted, prolly the wine!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Er Safe Harbor (sic) is a bit of a game changer is it not?

No not really. The very clever ladies and gentlemen at Fort Meade won't be inconvenienced in the slightest.

 

[GJH]

RIPA is one of the most misused powers employed currently by the state in its various forms, just ask any journalist who has been forced to disclose their sources of information.

I also have experience of RIPA from its miss-use by a local authority from personal experience and have an ICO judgement in my favour to prove this, do the "authorities" care? No, apparently I should be happy with an apology from the LA - no one sacked or held to account. And its an authority very close to you Graham!

I was somewhat mystified by this post because the ICO looks after Data Protection and Freedom of Information, nothing to do with RIPA at all. The ICO would not give a judgement on the use of RIPA because it is nothing to do with the ICO.

Sorry - early meal out and a couple of scoops so dropped into TLA, sorry three letter acronym mode.

ICO = Information Commissioners Office - the ones supposed to be watching the snoopers or all persuasions.
RIPA = Regulation of Investagatory Powers Act 2000 regulates the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was ostensibly introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption. Largely misused to spy on the public.
LA = local authority

Then I realised that the source of my mystification were the result of your apparent misunderstanding.
The ICO does not watch "snoopers of all persuasions". The ICO is concerned solely with Data Protection and Freedom of Information.
RIPA was not "ostensibly introduced to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption", it was introduced because the HRA made the use of powers that had existed for years illegal as it breached the human rights of those under surveillance.
RIPA is not "Largely misused to spy on the public". There have been a few minor examples of misuse which have been quickly discovered by the rigorous system of inspections and cracked down on accordingly.

Er Safe Harbor (sic) is a bit of a game changer is it not?

Safe Harbor is nothing to do with RIPA. It is an agreement between the EU and America to enable American organisations to comply with EU privacy laws. It was recently been shown that it is not up to the job.

 

[Paddywack]

@GJH OK without go into the specific details as I like my privacy.

The local authority collected CCTV of me doing something perfectly legal, in effect to try to intimidate me, when challenged by me they justified their surveillance through RIPA. I took their response to the ICO who informed the authority that they had no right to collect CCTV recordings in this way and insisted that the recordings were destroyed and no further ones made.

An interesting tale as to how the surveillance state works, evidence has now emerged of the misuse of surveillance in the UK after information was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dems surveyed 180 councils and found that powers granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) have been used 10,288 times in the last five years. Councils misused their powers in a number of ways from checking if parents live in the correct school catchment area to investigating dog fouling.

But how did it come to pass that local councils have such powers? An interesting account can be found in the recent House of Lords Constitution Committee's report 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State'. The report explains that when RIPA was passed in 2000, local authorities were not included in the list of public authorities granted surveillance powers:

During the passage of the Act, Bill Cash MP wrote to the then Home Secretary in relation to concerns raised with him that the Bill as drafted would extend the power to "a range of officials in several public-sector bodies including local authorities and … government departments." The then Minister of State, Charles Clarke MP, wrote back to Mr Cash, explaining that such concerns "may be referring to the provision in the Bill allowing for the Secretary of State to make further additions to" the list of relevant public authorities with power to obtain data "at some future stage if it is deemed necessary … by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. I can, however, confirm even at this stage that such powers will not be made available to local authorities."

Then in 2003 two Orders were passed by so called 'affirmative resolution' in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords that extended the surveillance powers to additional public authorities, including local authorities. But MPs and Peers were told that these were not new powers, just a tidying up exercise:

The debates in both Houses of Parliament when the Order was approved in 2003 seemed to indicate that these were not new powers. Clarification of this position was sought, the response confirmed that these were not new powers: prior to RIPA, the use of directed surveillance or covert human intelligence sources by any public authority, including local authorities, was unregulated. The Minister explained that RIPA addressed the situation and was designed to ensure that public authorities complied with the ECHR.

What an incredible example of doublespeak from Vernon Coaker MP, Home Office Minister for Crime, Policing, Counter-terrorism and Security at the time - to suggest that granting illiberal powers of surveillance to councils is a way of complying with the European Convention on Human Rights! Councils should not have these powers - if they suspect that a crime has been or is going to be committed then they should turn to the police who can investigate the matter.

The RIPA powers given to local authorities were granted under false pretenses, are unnecessary, have been abused and must be removed. But this serves as a perfect example of how Acts are framed and amended without proper scrutiny - something that will no doubt happen with the Snoopers Charter.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Judge Mental]

Power corrupts...Absolute power corrupts absolutely

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...emy-corbyn-and-ken-livingstone-to-be-examined

 

[GJH]

@GJH OK without go into the specific details as I like my privacy.

The local authority collected CCTV of me doing something perfectly legal, in effect to try to intimidate me, when challenged by me they justified their surveillance through RIPA. I took their response to the ICO who informed the authority that they had no right to collect CCTV recordings in this way and insisted that the recordings were destroyed and no further ones made.

It would appear, then, that the LA concerned did not understand RIPA.
If they had used RIPA to try to justify wrongful covert surveillance using CCTV that would have been picked up by the Surveillance Commissioner and they would have had their backsides severely kicked. Believe me, you do not want to be someone who is responsible for the failure of an inspection by the Surveillance Commissioner, it's tough enough passing one.
As the ICO made a ruling it appears that the LA actually obtained personal data using overt CCTV and then misused those data. That is wrong but is a different matter and nothing to do with RIPA.

But how did it come to pass that local councils have such powers?

The powers that LAs had/have were all granted by Act of Parliament and, in themselves, have nothing to do with RIPA. What happened, though, is that the HRA was so badly drafted that it meant using (existing) powers could breach the human rights of individuals. RIPA includes provisions to ensure that LAs can continue to use those powers when it is justified. A good example is test purchasing of alcohol and tobacco to catch people selling to kids.

The RIPA powers given to local authorities were granted under false pretenses, are unnecessary, have been abused and must be removed. But this serves as a perfect example of how Acts are framed and amended without proper scrutiny - something that will no doubt happen with the Snoopers Charter.

RIPA did not give any powers to anyone. All it did was to provide a mechanism by which existing powers could be used in the public interest. The new legislation will simply extend that mechanism to technologies that were not around when RIPA was enacted.

 

[Langtoftlad]

TBH, the reality, regardless of legislation used abused or misused, is that we are being spied upon going about our everyday lives enabled by "security" concerns.
This is the perception.
This is why we have concerns about embracing further legislation.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}