Those who have nothing to hide...
Have nothing to fear.
D'oh
Spy regs used against dogs, litterbugs
Local councils are using snooping laws - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - to follow dog walkers suspected of letting their dogs crap on public land and people suspected of littering. RIPA is meant to control how investigating bodies like the police and secret services can snoop on citizens' communications and …
-
Monday 28th April 2008 11:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
RIPA is for terrorists only?
Yes, clearly we must support the Daily Mail campaign to stop councils using legislation that was intended to be only used against terrorists to snoop on other people .... ermm, or is this the same RIPA which appears to be being invoked as the way of stopping ISPs snooping on us via Phorm!
I suspect that this is just a case of "changing the way things are counted" ... before RIPA I'd assume that councils already had people checking up on perceived problem areas ... certainly over recent years there's been several articles on the lengths school heads have had to go to o check whether parents making applications really live where they say they do. All that has changed is that now with RIPA is that they'd need to say that what they were doing is permitted by RIPA
-
Monday 28th April 2008 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Poole slandered parents
If you recall Poole said it was investigating 'fraud' by spying of parents to check their main home was the address claimed. It had to talk up the offences otherwise people might object to council workers following their movements to check on them.
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=357942
"Commenting on the findings, Cllr Les Lawrence, chairman of the Children and Young People Board of the LGA, said:...There appears to be an emerging and worrying trend of parents willing to break the law in order to try and get their children into the best schools.....The most common examples we uncover are: parents stating the address of the child’s grandparents as being the child’s home; parents stating the address of a property which they own but are renting out to other people; and parents who own more than one property not giving their correct home address."
What I think is needed is that by default, any time RIPA is used without court approval, the council or whatever has to notify the person that they were spied on.
That way they can take action if they think it was unjust. As it stands in RIPA, a council can simply use it without oversight, without judicial process, and if anyone suggests they're misusing it, they can simply make a false allegation, like Poole saying it was spying on fraudulant applications, yet never prosecution anyone.
Yet who knows why they were spying on people, we only have their word for it, and the people spied on can never find out they were followed. Perhaps one of them is an ex-girlfriend of a councillor, but only they would know this and they'll never find out because of the secrecy clause. So they'll never have the opportunity to uncover the misused of RIPA requests.
The more we find out the more it looks like RIPA is being misused, and the secrecy clause used to cover it up. Why shouldn't the person find out they were spied on if the original reason for the RIPA request was valid? Why shouldn't every police officer, council worker, and snoop defend their use of a RIPA request when it doesn't result in a prosecution?
-
Monday 28th April 2008 12:47 GMT Maurice Shakeshaft
AC & RIPA is for terrorists only?
If I understand the issue correctly you can only snoop (eg Phorm) when your entitled to do so in compliance with the law. Phorm, BT & the rest haven't, allegedly, complied with the law and the CEO's should be prosecuted and (if found guilty) have a wholesome and thinning diet of porridge - without the fat cat cream - for more than a little time! That the Local Authorities are doing snoopy things could be considered unacceptable extensions of the way they do business but at least we know they're doing it because they've had to comply with RIPA. Have I missed something here?
-
-
Monday 28th April 2008 12:47 GMT Mike Crawshaw
@ Geoff Mackenzie
It's more complex than that.
Y'see, people who rip their CDs to digital, then play them on a grey-import iPod are statistically proven to be the SAME people who let Rover shit on the sidewalk. And then watch extreme porn. With the dog. This study here says so: http://www.wattacrockashitfromsomeceleb.com
So, watching for who doesn't clean up Rover's doings whilst taking him for walkies allows them to identify smugglers, copyright-infringers, extreme-porn deviants, and those with a bestiality fetish. Who obviously support TEH TERRIRASTS!!!
It's for our own good!
-
Monday 28th April 2008 12:47 GMT Richard
The bit I don't quite get
From RIPA:
28 Authorisation of directed surveillance
(2) A person shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance unless he believes—
(a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and
(b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
How the hell does surveillance for littering prevention get authorised as a proportionate response? I'll bet the paperwork alone is more than the miscreants would have littered.
This is clearly from the same school of thought as the justification of Will's borrowing a chopper to get to a stag party as "valuable training".
-
Monday 28th April 2008 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
mea culpa
There was me thinking that this was a sensible law, that would 'do what it said on the tin'.
I was forgetting that local councils are filled with little Hitlers, who think that the ends justifiy the means. Perhaps we should buy them all some brown shirts?
Anonymous, because I'm getting a little paranoid.
Black Helis, because we're all terrorists now.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 13:22 GMT Dean
My SHAME
I have a confession to make...
I've occasionally thrown litter the pavement, I've even bought alcohol when I was 17 and (breaks down in tears) my dog has once or twice left his unmistakeable calling card on a grass verge. I now realise the error of my ways and how I have invited Osama right into the country.
I'm so ashamed.
I only hope they never find out that I drive at 75 mph on the motorway...
-
Monday 28th April 2008 14:03 GMT Steve Howe
Damn me, the authorities....
.. are using surveillance tech to aid the job of stop people breaking the law?!?!
My GOD, where will the travesties end?!?
Maybe next we'll have speed camera's catching people breaking the law by driving at a speed they consider safe? Oh right.. that one's here already..
-
Monday 28th April 2008 14:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
It's all our fault!
To be fair, we are all to blame. The government (currently a Labour one) brought these laws in - but we as the electorate voted them in. Not once, not twice, but three times!!!
I before everyone bites back with "well I didn't vote for them!!!"... well someone did. And obviously the majority.
Remember that tripe on BBC1 about the housewife who ended up PM... almost makes you wish it could be true. I think a great deal of us normal, sane people would revoke half of these stupid laws and right the wrongs put in play over the last 11 years.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 14:33 GMT Trevor Watt
Who likes fly tippers?
Fly tipping is classed as an offence under the littering laws.
So following known fly-tippers is well within a council's remit and justifiable.
What would you rather have, your local council having someone follow the fly-tippers, or just keep paying through your council tax bills to clean up after them?
-
Monday 28th April 2008 15:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
<no title>
As always in this type of situation, I am outraged at the authorities use of cameras to spy on the decent citizen. In this case I suggest all the civil liberties groups immediately resolve to ensure this stops. Meanwhile given the way litter louts make any decent folk ashamed to be their fellow citizens, I'd suggest the groups put this on the back burner immediately, and return to it as soon as the more important civil rights issues as sorted, maybe in a decade or three's time.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 15:02 GMT Tom
@ Mark
No it wouldn't! If you remember how much tripe was included in that broadcast, the country would be phucked! All she did was moan and bleet, used the countrys resources to her own gains and abused her position to improove her social position, get free-bees ect.
Ohhh........ hang on a minute, did that actually happen?
-
Monday 28th April 2008 15:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
An Authority
RIPA applies to surveillance by an authority. BT & Phorm are not an authority so they'll have to be done under some other law - Data Protection most likely.
All RIPA applications should withstand scrutiny by the Surveillance Commissionaires - it would appear they are not doing their job. Wankers!
Penguin because its black and white.
Anonymous because I am paranoid too.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 15:16 GMT Jonathan Richards
Hey, Mr Tally Man...
<quote>PA contacted 97 councils and got replies from 46. 16 councils said they did not use the Act, 16 did not respond and 19 said they would only release the information if they received a formal Freedom of Information request</quote>.
Since 16+16+19 = 51 = 97-46, I guess that breakdown is meant to describe *non*-replies. However, I think "We don't use RIPA powers", and "Come back with a proper FoI request, sucker" are perfectly proper replies, so is it in fact the case that PA got replies from 81 councils?
On a separate note, I think public bodies are obligated to treat *any* information request as if it was an FoI request, even if it doesn't contain the right magic incantation to make it formal. That's the case in this Department of State, anyway.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 15:16 GMT Harry Stottle
@Poole Slandered Parents
"What I think is needed is that by default, any time RIPA is used without court approval, the council or whatever has to notify the person that they were spied on."
and there you have one of the core concepts of Trusted Surveillance.
as Anon Coward said:
"Yet who knows why they were spying on people, we only have their word for it"
This is a problem we can solve if we get our act together...
http://www.fullmoon.nu/book/side_issues/IdentityCards.htm
-
Monday 28th April 2008 18:32 GMT John Murgatroyd
Or-thorities ?
"ll RIPA applications should withstand scrutiny by the Surveillance Commissionaires - it would appear they are not doing their job. Wankers!"
The entire structure of government is full of "authorities" who do not regulate anything.
From O£COM to Information Commissioner, they revel in the power they have but do not use.
Loads of "authority", little "bottle".
Or, securing their careers by ignoring us.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 18:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Don't you get it ?
It's simple - any government lives in fear of the people they govern - they fear you, and by definition that makes all of us terrorists in their eyes. They have to stop anyone from ever being a threat to their power base, and to do that they divide us all up, small chunks, easy to swallow whole. The only exceptions are themselves and those needed to enforce their rule (Army, Police, Civil Service, etc.). Not exactly rocket science, but it can be worked out by reading Machiavelli, and really thinking about the big picture. Which will soon be illegal.
When they said it will end in 2012, I laughed. However, the timescale is about on track for social dissolution - by 2010 you should have an idea of what's up ahead - and all these little pieces will make it far easier to control the inevital riots that will happen in London for the Olympics. I remember some Nazi Germany footage about their Olympics. Guards with Guns, and people cheering with fear in their eyes.
Welcome to the New World - please leave your freedoms at the front door.
-
Monday 28th April 2008 18:34 GMT davenewman
No need for formal freedom of information request
They cannot insist on a formal freedom of information request. There is no such thing. All requests for information from a statutory body, in any form, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Please can journalists immediately respond to this point when they hear this bullshit, and address their request to "the Little Hitler" in the good old 1940s tradition.
-
Tuesday 29th April 2008 00:16 GMT JohnG
I thought the Police were supposed to investigate crime...
.. and the council was supposed to look after the roads, collect the rubbish and so on. If they're out following their citizens about, no wonder they have no time or money for the mundane stuff.
One wonders if it might also be cheaper to employ more people to clean the streets and parks, rather than employ people to follow other people about.
If the dog license was restored, maybe there wouldn't be so many irresponsible dog owners.
-
Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:19 GMT Paul
@ Mark: It's not all our fault (not mine anyway)
in 2005 Labour got 55% of seats with 35% of the popular vote and a piddling 22% of the total electorate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm
or if you're really interested:
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/results.htm
I believe Mugabe has it listed in his favorites
-
Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:24 GMT Neil Jones
Oh, PLEASE!
I’m starting to get a bit bored of all of these dramatic headlines about ill-informed RIPA stories. The clue is in the name: REGULATION of INVESTIGATORY POWERS Act (2000). So, starting from the back, we’ve got “2000”... that’s a whole year before we all went terrorism mad, and the Act was being drafted for several years before that. So it’s not a “terrorism law”, it’s an act of Parliament that’s equally applicable to surveillance against terrorists as it is to surveillance against benefit cheats.
Then we get to the “Investigatory Powers” bit, and that definition includes not only the police, intelligence services and armed forces, but Government departments (DSS, MAFF, DETR etc), local authorities, and other bodies including the Post Office, The Financial Services Authority and the Food Standards Agency.
And then we’ve got the key word, “Regulation”. And that’s what RIPA is about. It doesn’t suddenly give bodies new powers to spy on us as the media like to portray, it exists to control this kind of activity. Before RIPA, there was very little control over -for example- the DSS watching people whom they suspected of being benefit frauds, now that is governed by RIPA. It’s therefore wrong or at least misleading to say that “X used RIPA to spy on Y”, it should be “X was governed by RIPA when spying on Y”. And it’s also misleading in that any surveillance activity carried out by a council is by its very definition covered by RIPA. Bottom line is that if you’re a council and you want to undertake some form of surveillance then you’re governed by RIPA. Or as the media prefer, you’ve got to use this “terror law” whether you like it or not. Yes, you can question whether certain surveillance operations should have been sanctioned, and maybe RIPA needs tightening up in a few areas, but RIPA is not black helicopter legislation any more than the Road Traffic Act is responsible for car crashes.
-
Tuesday 29th April 2008 17:25 GMT Gordon
Just who gave them???
The right to carry out "Surveilance" under the guise of the RIPA?
These powers should be restricted to warranted Police officers ONLY. I think i'm right in saying a specially trained office of the rank of Inspector or greater needs to authorise RIPA requests.
What worries me is that, from local council "officers" it is only a hop, skip and a jump to private contractors being given the power to snoop on anyone they like. Having seen the way council parking contractors behave (no naming, but you know who they are!) this would be terrible. We'll have the buggers rifling through our trash to find out what we've been doing and what they can fine us for. KA-CHING!!!!
-
Tuesday 29th April 2008 17:25 GMT Gordon
@ Neil Jones
Technically you're absolutely right. But whenever a set of laws are laid down about something, it's invariably taken as an authorisation *provided* the task is completed in the proscribed way. Previously the surveilance teams had to pass a subjective test of whether their actions were reasonable, now they just have to "hit the bullet points" in order to be judged to have complied with the law!
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
