4 ms·

>None of the agencies would be required to apply for warrants to access people’s internet connection data This is misleading. All requests for any kind of Comm

>None of the agencies would be required to apply for warrants to access people’s internet connection data This is misleading. All requests for any kind of Communications Data require authorisation [1] and need to outline necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion, including details of less intrusive means already tried. This is a similar process to the warrant application process - the difference is that a Warrant is authorised by the Secretary of State (the Home Secretary) whereas the CD authorisation is granted by the Investigatory Powers commissioner - previously Sir Adrian Fulford and currently Lord Justice Levison. To say that any agency can get without a warrant is misleading. Also, none of the agencies cited (Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and NHS Business Services Authority) will have the authority to request to ICRs [3]. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-communications-data-authorisations https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-commu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Leveson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Leveson [3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/62/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/62/enac...

hlandau 6y ago
Who do you represent? The "warrants" offered by the IPA are meaningless and undeserving of the name, given that they're issued by the Secretary of State and not a court. The "judicial commissioner" process is equally farcical, since it basically just ensures the SoS filled out the paperwork correctly. What is notably absent from any of this is a judge making any finding of evidential basis for warrant issuance, which is supposed to be the very premise of a warrant. For a particularly amusing example of this, consider the fact that the new UK-USA CLOUD Act cooperation forced the UK to create a new kind of warrant which, unlike all other IP warrants in the UK, requires the involvement of an actual judge. I guess the US looked at the UK's notion of a "warrant" and was having none of it. Ironically, this means the UK is actually holding itself to a higher standard when asking other countries for data than when doing so domestically. The requirement for "proportionality" is equally farcical. This is, as I understand it, a result of the ECHR striking down previous legislation on the grounds that it is not "proportional". The UK's "solution" to this is, AIUI, to add a line to the law saying "any usage must be proportional". It says it has to be proportional, thus it's proportional, right?
- mtgx 6y ago
  Yes, UK "surveillance warrants" are worse than the rubber-stamped FISA surveillance warrants in the US. It's basically the government giving itself permission to spy on people and calling it a "warrant."
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  > Who do you represent? A valid question and honestly, I wouldn't mind if accounts like this one were flagged as "probable shill" given that it registered a random account to defend an invasive piece of legislation.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  A judge doesn't make an evidential finding when issuing a warrant, they don't study the evidence at all. In fact no evidence is presented. The officer swears that the factual basis for the application is true. The court is there to check necessity and proportionality on the assumption the officer's sworn application is true. Edit: I'm sure they retain the right to inspect the evidence if they want to
  - hlandau 6y ago
    That was basically what I was trying to say, yes. I wasn't saying a court would conduct its own investigation; obviously they assume the applicants are telling the truth and wouldn't commit perjury. But it absolutely is within the court's remit to consider the documents filed and decide whether the evidence presented therein amounts to enough of a case to issue a warrant. It's something conspicuously absent from the IPA, which puts this responsibility on ministers.
malux85 6y ago
I too would like to know who you represent, randomly generated ID as a username signed up 53 minutes ago, and in favor of the new spying legislation. Speaks for itself I think.

hlandau 6y ago

Who do you represent? The "warrants" offered by the IPA are meaningless and undeserving of the name, given that they're issued by the Secretary of State and not a court. The "judicial commissioner" process is equally farcical, since it basically just ensures the SoS filled out the paperwork correctly. What is notably absent from any of this is a judge making any finding of evidential basis for warrant issuance, which is supposed to be the very premise of a warrant. For a particularly amusing example of this, consider the fact that the new UK-USA CLOUD Act cooperation forced the UK to create a new kind of warrant which, unlike all other IP warrants in the UK, requires the involvement of an actual judge. I guess the US looked at the UK's notion of a "warrant" and was having none of it. Ironically, this means the UK is actually holding itself to a higher standard when asking other countries for data than when doing so domestically. The requirement for "proportionality" is equally farcical. This is, as I understand it, a result of the ECHR striking down previous legislation on the grounds that it is not "proportional". The UK's "solution" to this is, AIUI, to add a line to the law saying "any usage must be proportional". It says it has to be proportional, thus it's proportional, right?

mtgx 6y ago
Yes, UK "surveillance warrants" are worse than the rubber-stamped FISA surveillance warrants in the US. It's basically the government giving itself permission to spy on people and calling it a "warrant."
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
> Who do you represent? A valid question and honestly, I wouldn't mind if accounts like this one were flagged as "probable shill" given that it registered a random account to defend an invasive piece of legislation.
JoeSmithson 6y ago
A judge doesn't make an evidential finding when issuing a warrant, they don't study the evidence at all. In fact no evidence is presented. The officer swears that the factual basis for the application is true. The court is there to check necessity and proportionality on the assumption the officer's sworn application is true. Edit: I'm sure they retain the right to inspect the evidence if they want to
- hlandau 6y ago
  That was basically what I was trying to say, yes. I wasn't saying a court would conduct its own investigation; obviously they assume the applicants are telling the truth and wouldn't commit perjury. But it absolutely is within the court's remit to consider the documents filed and decide whether the evidence presented therein amounts to enough of a case to issue a warrant. It's something conspicuously absent from the IPA, which puts this responsibility on ministers.

malux85 6y ago

I too would like to know who you represent, randomly generated ID as a username signed up 53 minutes ago, and in favor of the new spying legislation. Speaks for itself I think.