4 ms·

The historical problem in the UK has been that surveillance powers that were rushed through parliament to tackle "terrorism" have ended up being made available

The historical problem in the UK has been that surveillance powers that were rushed through parliament to tackle "terrorism" have ended up being made available to every single branch of government. And 99.9% of the time they're used for petty, local government issues, like collecting council taxes or speeding fines, often by people without any law enforcement training at all. Even if the OCDA ends up rubber stamping requests from the police, it'd be a huge improvement on the complete free-for-all there has been in the past. If they at least reject requests from a guy in the council refuse collection department who wants to spy on his ex-wife, then that'll be an improvement.

Chriky 9y ago
The vast majority of RIPA applications are made by Police, not local councils.
- CraigJPerry 9y ago
  Where is that information available? AFAICT local authority requests are via JPs in local courts and no centralised numbers exist?
  - Chriky 9y ago
    They are in the OSC's annual report, for example. [1] Councils also sometimes respond to FOI requests, although they don't have to. e.g. over a three year period this council [2] made 11 requests for Call Data Records (who somebody phone) and 29 applications for in-person surveillance (checking people who claim to be unemployed are actually unemployed). In 2015-2016 (the most recent OSC I can find) there were, for example, 9147 applications for Directed Surveillance of which a MAXIMUM 8.5% were possibly by local councils. Do you have any evidence that suggests, it is, in fact, 99.9% from local councils? [1] https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Annual-Report-of-the-Chief-Surveillance-Commissioner-for-2013-2014-laid-4-September-2014.pdf https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/An... [2] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation_of_investi_9 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation...
pmyteh 9y ago
The even more historical problem is that surveillance powers were operated under the royal prerogative with no oversight of any kind. RIPA (that, correctly, much maligned predecessor to the Snoopers' Charter) was in one sense a step forward in that it at least put the surveillance that had always gone on onto a statutory basis. Same with local councils. They'd always carried out some physical surveillance (benefit fraud and lying on school application forms being the main scope IIRC) but without oversight. Unfortunately, the oversight regime sucks. But as you say, it's an improvement on a complete free-for-all.
DanBC 9y ago
The point of RIPA is not to allow surveillance, but to disallow most of the surveillance that was being carried out unless clear proceedures were followed. RIPA wasn't a snoopers charter, it was designed to limit the amount of snooping that was happening and to bring it under some kind of regulatory framework. It's not a very good law, and it's too generous to people wishing to carry out surveillance. But it's better than the uncontrolled surveillance that was happening before.

Chriky 9y ago

The vast majority of RIPA applications are made by Police, not local councils.

CraigJPerry 9y ago
Where is that information available? AFAICT local authority requests are via JPs in local courts and no centralised numbers exist?
- Chriky 9y ago
  They are in the OSC's annual report, for example. [1] Councils also sometimes respond to FOI requests, although they don't have to. e.g. over a three year period this council [2] made 11 requests for Call Data Records (who somebody phone) and 29 applications for in-person surveillance (checking people who claim to be unemployed are actually unemployed). In 2015-2016 (the most recent OSC I can find) there were, for example, 9147 applications for Directed Surveillance of which a MAXIMUM 8.5% were possibly by local councils. Do you have any evidence that suggests, it is, in fact, 99.9% from local councils? [1] https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Annual-Report-of-the-Chief-Surveillance-Commissioner-for-2013-2014-laid-4-September-2014.pdf https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/An... [2] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation_of_investi_9 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation...

pmyteh 9y ago

The even more historical problem is that surveillance powers were operated under the royal prerogative with no oversight of any kind. RIPA (that, correctly, much maligned predecessor to the Snoopers' Charter) was in one sense a step forward in that it at least put the surveillance that had always gone on onto a statutory basis. Same with local councils. They'd always carried out some physical surveillance (benefit fraud and lying on school application forms being the main scope IIRC) but without oversight. Unfortunately, the oversight regime sucks. But as you say, it's an improvement on a complete free-for-all.

DanBC 9y ago

The point of RIPA is not to allow surveillance, but to disallow most of the surveillance that was being carried out unless clear proceedures were followed. RIPA wasn't a snoopers charter, it was designed to limit the amount of snooping that was happening and to bring it under some kind of regulatory framework. It's not a very good law, and it's too generous to people wishing to carry out surveillance. But it's better than the uncontrolled surveillance that was happening before.