"Whilst it is a matter for each council to determine for its area"

No, it isn't, the right to privacy is a basic right written into law. It's not up to the council to decide that privacy can be removed for littering or whatever, it's for the courts to decide.

If you want public support, then each case should be reviewed by a judge. If it's not important enough to get a warrant then why is it important enough to spy on people?

Surely if you are claiming 'fraud' (like the local council vetting people who apply for a school place did), then they can get a warrant?

Imagine how insane that is, a Council can obtain records of everyone you've called or who has called you, with nothing more than a letter asking for it.

The request is kept secret, so if they're misusing the power you would never know and would never be able to challenge.

The ombudsman is only informed if the council informs him, and even then he is a toothless watchdog intended to present an air of auditing to these.

RIPA is not anti-terror legislation. Yes it can be used for that but it's original purpose was for the prevention and detection of crime. This hang up on 'anti-terror' is just media hype.

Second, RIPA is a fantastically badly written piece of law. It was rushed through to counter the effects of Human Rights Act (which basically said 'thou shalt not spy on anyone - unless your law says it's legal to' which ours didn't.)

Thirdly, local authorities are quite specifically only allowed to use RIPA for the prevention and detection of crime. If they have, as the reports suggest, being using it for dog turd droppers then the recipient of the fine has particularly good grounds not only to get the fine dropped like a tab end but for getting the council bollocked for inappropriate surveillance.

As bad as it is, this isn't an issue of 'new' spying laws or even of government big brother. It's basically some council jobsworths with bad oversight deciding that as they've got some bright and shiny cameras why not try and make a few of the gazillion quid they've spent on them back by collaring fag droppers and turd leavers.

In fairness, I don't particulalry mind it. People who leave behind the turds of their dogs should have their face rubbed in it to make sure they don't do it again.

<...>RIPA calls for spying powers to be used only when "necessary and proportionate to prevent or detect a criminal offence".<..>

Erm by the Police and Security services. What exactly are local councils doing getting involved in criminal or terrorist investigations in the first place?

Allowing minor local functionaries this kind of power is the sort of madness we expected from Eastern Europe decades ago.

first off

not clearing up dog turd and littering are technically crimes under the environmental protection act 1990 (as ammended by several hundred newer acts and regulations) by not clearing up after your dog / littering you are not complying with the duty of care requirements of waste handeling which is the same legislation used for fly tippers. it is a requirement of the waste producer to ensure that it is disposed of correctly or transfered to an appropriatly licenced waste handler.

as for following people home to ensure they live in the correct district this is an abuse of the powers as i cann't see what harm has een done (i.e. if the grandparents or whoever live in that district then they are paying council tax for the education of children aswell as the parents)

Being an Ex Councillor I know just how frustrating it is to continuously spend time and money clearing up after people's anti-social behaviour, which is getting worse by the way.

The public are only too happy to complain about litter, dog fouling, parking on pavements, fly tipping, noise and just about anything else, but when it comes to standing up and being counted they are crap, the see nothing. The Police are useless, and have palmed much of the enforcement of this kind of thing on to local authorities, and spend most of their life filling in forms anyway.

So what, do you expect the local authorities to do then, they are not policemen, they aren't trained to deal with situations in the same way as the police nor do they have the authority too. For their own safety they have to use remote enforcement methods, and I don't blame them.

Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

Oh there is an alternative though, you could become a law abiding citizen and so not have to worry about it. And just think next time you drop your chewing gum and litter on the pavement, if you and everyone else put stuff in the bins, councils wouldn't be using these methods. The don't spend money just because they can you know.

@Secretgeek - I agree with the spirit of your post but I'm afraid you're wrong about the status of dog fouling. It most certainly is a crime, under the EPA amongst others.

First off, when the legislation was put before the commons, it was all about how it was necessary for the war on terror to ensure our safety.

The LAW never mentioned this.

But since the politicians were stampeded into saying yes or being against our safety, the reason for the law that was stated is CENTRAL to how it should be applied.

If the discussion was "we need this to stop dog owners letting their pooches poop on our pavements", I doubt many would have said "OK".

"RIPA is not anti-terror legislation. "

I'm with elReg on that, the justification is there right in the first paragraph of RIPA, the intention of RIPA was clear.

"An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, ... to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes."

So RIPA was drafted for "Security service" "Secret Intelligence Service" and GCHQ. No mention of 'local council dog poop' in the intro.

2002 Added local authorities (and a bunch of other agencies, even politicaly controlled ones) to the list of agency. This causes a backlash, people are very unhappy that any local official can have a look at their private phone, and other records.

2003 Sought to address the backlash with a 'code of practise' and a 'commissioner'. A few sops, essentially the core problem remained, non judges issuing letters equivalent to legal warrants without the right to consider the privacy right.

2004 Leveraged the EU mutual assistence treaty to extend RIPA to intercepting info for non UK people, and also non UK countries can require the RIPA data.

2005, Port authorities added to RIPA, now the Port of Liverpool can demand your records, without a warrant. Nuclear police (the private security agency that protects nuclear power stations) get the snoop powers too. Snoop powers for everyone!

2006 we had the demands for data retention in the EU, 'for national security purposes'. Effectively this killed the right of privacy by allowing data to be stored for people not suspected of crime.

2007 further expansion of RIPA.

By 2008 the data grabbed in 2006 is being made available for other purposes other than national security, see Home office recent internal memos. + data mining of all stored data.

By 2010 I expect all Brown/Smith will have all transaction monitored for every purpose with no right to privacy.

Cathing people who fail to clear up after their dogs is an entirely proper use of RIPA. Have you tried to navigate a baby-buggy and a 3 year old child through the minefield left by one of these selfish oafs' mutts?

Generally I agree with El Reg's view that we are slipping into a police state, but lazy dog walkers need to be forced to eat up their pet's excrement with a spoon (perhaps only on a third offence) and RIPA will generate the evidence required for a conviction.

Survey on people?

IMO, there isn't enough survelance in parks, it a child can go into a park and stepin/roll in, fallin /pick up dog shite then there is clearl someone who has broken the law and made what was once and still should be a clean and safe place for kids to play into an area of land littered with what is essentially sewage.

perhaps the dog walkers should pick up their dongs shit, and since they don't then i feel it's perfectly reasonable to have park attendants actually watch to see who it is that won't pick up after their dog, and ensure that they are punished for breaking the law.

Where the issue of dogs crapping on the grass is concerned, you're not into the realms of black helicopters following all dog walkers down the street. you're looking at a bunch of people who are shrugging their responsibility getting pictured in the act.

people who cheat benefits getting caught.

this is the ideal situation. the local councils are able to take responsibility for ensuring that the law is followed, and the streets are safe and clean, whilst allowing local police to get on with real policing business.

"The public are only too happy to complain about litter, dog fouling, parking on pavements, fly tipping, noise and just about anything else, but when it comes to standing up and being counted they are crap,"

Yeh, we should have compulsary DNA, so that any chewing gum found can be tracked back to the individual and the chewing gum stuck in their hair.

Dogs should have their DNA taken too, any dog poop can be checked for residual dog DNA and traced back to their owners to have dog poop smeared in their faces.

The cameras that already monitor cars who stop to let out school kids, could be used to monitor people. Add a barcode to their foreheads to make for easier scanning.

Councils could form vigilante units to shoot repeat offenders.

We could put a fence around Britain, add some concession stores, a few fenced walkways, a drive through area with some signs warning visitors not to open their windows or leave their cars, and us Europeans could come visit, for a laugh.

Spying on people is anti-social too. Wasting tax payer money is anti-social. Invading people's privacy is anti-social. Assuming guilt of many to catch one or two is anti-social. But hey, bears shit in the woods? OMG how anti-social!

Yes, I do have a noise problem where I'm living and I'm dealing with it. Now please get real for a moment, there is a world of difference between a neighbor measuring noise levels in their own home and dodgy council workers being given an excuse for following young schoolgirls around whenever they feel the urge.

"They still use good old-fashioned street patrols (with vetted, Professional Officers) to fine the dirty bast#!ds who feel it acceptable to tarnish the streets with their litter and dog turds."

Clearly they aren't doing so enough, or in the right places/times.

RIPA is not appropriate for this stuff, but I do quite agree that dog owners should be made to clear up, by Bobbies on the Beat !!!

Would offenders please refrain from bagging their dog shit and then hanging it from trees or chucking it at the path side(Why do they do this?). It takes light years to break down, and it confuses my dog!