Quote:
Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe
Over the past few days, Florence and I have been in a detailed and I think very productive email exchange with Simon Watkin and Andrew Knight at the Home Office, specifically covering their view of RIPA in relation to the Phorm trials and the proposed Phorm implementation. They were keen to ensure that the points could be established without a free for all, otherwise a conclusion may never be reached.
I recognise there is a danger arising from just a couple of posters being involved in this process. However I think it is justified by the substantial progress we have made, and that quite soon the points formulated will be open for public debate.
The aim is to bring them to a position where they can issue some further public opinions on Phorm and the RIPA, whether via a press release or on here (that's effectively up to them). I hope that we'll have achieved this by early next week.
We're covering about ten points, but as I think we are agreed on the first three I thought I'd share these with you. Please bear in mind that this information is my interpretation of the email exchange, and although I have every reason to believe it is accurate, the Home Office has not approved the wording and so the final version may differ.
1. RIPA provides a statutory framework for regulating the conduct of public authorities which may interfere with individuals’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
2. RIPA provides for lawful authority for intercepting communications but also provides for an offence of unlawful interception which any person, absolutely anyone, is able to commit.
3. The Home Office (outside of its immigration functions) is not an investigatory body. It is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception.
|
we trust that you and Florence will be fine go-betweens, the only thought right now, as im busy and overworked lol, so i may miss some points, is what are these 10 points as an overview?.
not to concerned with the exact text right now,just the outline, but given Alexanders outlines and the relationships with the EU regulations the RIPA is based on there might be more points to raise for clarity.
remember, in court one side always losses....so we want to be clear s we can be given the collective here contributing, and on the same page, we should be fine generally.
it would be good to know if all the points needing to be raised were clear and covered in the general terms, before they issue any quick text in the hope of keeping the readership quiet.
if you can outline the other missing 7 points we can consider if there are infact more that need raising before the next set of emails get sent by you both, i think its better to take a day and be clear, rather than having you keep sending emails round-robin.
point 1 , sure we all conceed public authorities have powers with legal review and the right paperwork inplace, so that is null and void for most things, and not aparty to the totally seperate and required clarification of the ISP or Phorm parnership as a profit making party agreement.
2a the same.
2b sure it seems the rules clearly cover this and to the FULL LETTER OF THE LAW....
this is the part we need them to state as fact in their opinion, and their responsibility to pass on any and all facts to the right people in scotland yard for instance, and an undertaking that they will without any more delay.... do so.
just as a few first thoughts you understand, theres probably more, Alexander?, others?.....
3: im not so sure about that but i cant think of exactly why right now, minds a little foggy ATM, all those PDFs over a long timeframe are bad for the logic and total recall ;(