back to article RIPA changes in Freedoms Bill don't protect privacy enough

The “Protection of Freedoms Bill” has a wholly misleading title; the legislation simply does not do what it says on the tin. The CCTV provisions (see here) have more to do with efficient surveillance than privacy protection. We reviewed the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the use of personal data in DNA profiling or in …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Surprised, not much

Given that the entire Bill is government by Daily Mail, what did you really expect?

4
0
Unhappy

Indeed

Unfortunately, in a true democracy, even the persistently and wilfully ignorant can vote, typically with opinions based upon hyperbole and prejudice.

God bless the uninformed masses.

5
0
Unhappy

RIPA vs UK Jobs

Given provisions within RIPA, a company would have valid concerns about how the law and resultant information could be abused.

For example, if a bent police officer gave himself access to comercial sensitive information (such as internal comms on an upcomming product liability claim at a big pharma company), the officer and his friends could carry out massive amounts of insider trading, with the RIPA'd company and it's directors being the only suspects for the FSA and SEC actions after the market manipulation is spotted.

Therefore with RIPA as it stands, there would be good arguments for putting you data somewhere with decent privacy protection laws (e.g. Switzerland).

Hence one could argue that the retention of RIPA is jeopardising UK IT jobs, if it has not already resulted in big multinationals deciding to edge there bets a build there data centres elsewhere

1
0
Gold badge
Thumb Down

@AC

Err, you do know that RIPA only deals with communications *data* IE who contacted who and for how long.

OTOH the plan for GCHQ continues their hoover-up-everything continues.

0
0
Bronze badge

AC standing for Another Clot...

Well Mr. AC you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking. Internal communications are not subject to RIPA record keeping, and even on external communications, it's only source and destination, not content. To intercept content It would require an interception warrant. RIPA makes it explicitly illegal to intercept communications without authority and that most certainly includes the police.

Anyway, as usual, not knowing the law, or bothering to find out about it, seems not to stop people having opinions about it.

0
0
Stop

Ground Up Re-write Needed

Given RIPA, the terrorism act(S), etc.

My personal view is that we need to scrap all existing surveilance legislation and write a single coherent piece of legislation that actually balances crime detection against unwarranted intrusion in to a person's life.

As a fundemental premise I would suggest that all directed surveilance should be reviewed and authorised by an independant judicary, rather than allowing enforcement officers to give themselve the powers to rubber stamp their own survielance ops.

This judicial oversight, would cut back on the over zealous as well corrupt practices of individuals within law enforcement agencies. (it would also probably save money by stopping expensive fishing expeditions)

1
0
Badgers

I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!

yeah, good luck with getting anything as sensible as that passed. We all know that all they're really doing is moving deckchairs, they will never fully relinquish the powers they currently have.

1
0
Thumb Down

And once again...

The Act is a piece of bullshit PR.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums