@The Other Steve
"Where is the intrusion into privacy ? You walk a dog in public, it shits on the pavement in public, someone takes a photo of you and your doggy pal doing the dirty, in public."
I don't believe that being out in public is in any way implicit permission for my activities to be recorded.
No, I don't believe that dog crap is important enough to justify monitoring the entire population 24/7. Nor do I believe that being on camera is a deterrent to more serious crime. Nor do I believe it has significantly affected the ability of the police to successfully prosecute crime. Every study shows it too be ineffectual.
Studies also show that people abuse whatever powers they are given, you get phone company employees harassing ex-girlfriends and reading their text messages. Politicians pressuring the police to employ relatives etc. It's only a matter of time before we learn of the council employee that was using cctv to stalk women.
"who are the "ever more people" intruding into this non existent privacy right ?"
The system should be available to the police and the police only, if it exists at all. They are trained and they are accountable, sometimes. Council employees are the "ever more people", and they seem to have less and less qualms about using it for anything they feel like. I doubt very much they control access to the system at all, let alone properly.
"RIPA doesn't enable anyone to do anything, it merely mandates that they ask first before undertaking certain kinds of activity."
It spelled out what could be done. It codified a lot of the crap that was already going on. The only bill that should have been introduced was one banning it.
Spooks will be spooks, but council members can fuck off. This country was once free.