Re: What database?
> The only way a filter can work is if there is a central government database.
"Hello, Transco? Government here. Could you give us the names and other sundry details of anyone who paid gas bills at both these addresses over the last ten years, please?"
"Hi, Government. We'd love to, but sadly that information is on our own database. Obviously we could only provide it to you if you already held it on your own database. Sorry. Love, Transco."
> there is no way that EE can know that person A carrying phone X is, or is not, person A carrying phone Y on the Vodaphone network.
> Very few crims ... are stupid enough to carry the same phone to different jobs.
According to Candice DeLong, the unofficial motto of the FBI is "Ain't you glad they're dumb?" Most criminals are thick.
Besides, it is obviously always true that we could make laws worse in order to make the police's job easier. That doesn't mean that, if you can think of a way in which a law isn't making the police's job as easy as it could, the law can't really exist.
> What they continually gloss over though is the fact that anyone can buy a cheap phone without any identity check and pop in a prepaid sim card, then throw it away once the job is one.
Who's glossing over that? I'm pretty sure both the Government and the police are well aware of that, and I've certainly never seen any of them try to imply otherwise. The phones-at-crime-scenes things was just an illustrative example of how the filters work, not some sort of claim of supercop prowess.
> Which gets us back to the real reason for this bill: to be able to retroactively go though the masses of data
They've drawn up a bill which prevents the police getting mass data slurps and attempts to limit the amount of irrelevant data they get in order to give the police more data?