Quote:
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 offense of unlawful interception which any person, absolutely anyone, is able to commit.
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...e_tap_charges/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6301243.stm
Quote:
|
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.
|
While they may not be an investigatory body, do they not have any powers to instruct a force (Met) to look into the allegations? (and if not then who does?) At this stage it wouldn't have to be a full investigation, it could simply be an assessment of whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a full investigation. It just seems to me and many others that nobody wants to start the process. Everyone playing pass the parcel (ticking bomb).
Just sticking to the 06/07 trials here ...
- Questioned about interception (RIPA) BT simply point to their compliance with the DPA? Mis-direction - RIPA (as far as I can see) says nothing about the purposes of the interception just that interception itself is an offense.
- BT seem to believe that as long as we can't identify individual targets, times and dates (information only BT have) no action can be taken. Isn't this why we call it "investigation"? I'm sure the Police do not generally rely on potential offenders walking through the door clutching a list of offenses that they want confess to.
- Only "a very small proportion" of customers were involved. How many does it take before it is a criminal act? One would be my guess. We may have 100,000+
- Our legal advice was .... Since when was it the role of hired legal council to decide your status. They can try the defense on your behalf once you are in a Court.
Hence the frustration. There certainly seems to be something worth investigation here so when will somebody make a move?