You may not be paranoid

[Vladd67]

You know combine RIPA with this
http://vladdsviewoftheworld.blogspot...ill-track.html
and you have to ask yourself just how paranoid am I?

[Ursa major]

Not paranoid enough, mate.


This sounds like another attempt by government to prop up the IT Consultancy industry.

(This industry can, inadvertantly, be Freedom's friend: their implementations are often so woeful, they're worse than useless. And on the plus side, is there a disk big enough on which to put all the data and so let some idiot lose it all in the post?)




And re: time on the internet - If you're always on aren't you always on?

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

Surely in the case of a suspected arsonist it is up to the police to investigate not the council. As for the anti social dog owners that were fine 50 pounds for not clearing up after their dogs, how much did the surveillance and investigation cost the council?

Dog faeces can cause a serious infection in humans, particularly young children, called Toxocariasis. This infection is caused by Toxacaria canis, a roundworm found in dog faeces that can attack the retina of the eye and may cause blindness.

If the spending by the council stops one child from contracting this because a stupid owner won't clear up after his/her dog, then, yes, I'd say it was worth it. In fact, I would boost the fine to make dog-owners really think about leaving their dogs excrement on the pavement, or worse, in the grass on verges, and to help pay for the people to investigate and monitor the problem.

I've nothing against dogs...only arrogant, "oh, the rules are there for others" owners.

[Ursa major]

If you were asking "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", here's the answer:

Watchdog To Cast Eye Over Council Spies (from Bournemouth Echo)

[Vladd67]

Now this is getting worse.
Phone spies: Town halls using anti-terror powers to bug residents’ calls and emails | Vladd’s view of the World
Now I can see the police and the security services using phone taps and reading your emails, distastful as it is, but I find the idea of some middle management guy in your town council spying on you in this way just a step to far. Yes you can argue that it is reasonable for the council to go after rogue traders etc but every infringement of privacy in this way just chisels away at public liberty.

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Originally Posted by Eugene McCarthy

The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

The basis of a democratic state is liberty.

[Ursa major]

Consider these two statements (the first from the article you're quoting, the second from the Wiki article on the RIP Act):

Some councils are allowing middle-ranking staff to authorise covert operations under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which is intended for use ‘in the interests of national security’.

At the passing of the act only nine organisations (including the police and security services) were allowed to invoke it, but as of 2008, it was 792 organizations (including 474 councils).

(The bolding is mine.)


I think we've all become used to proliferation in security agencies, but I find it hard to believe that there are 792 (and, presumably, counting) of them.

What I find even more worrying is that the current government seems quite keen on outsourcing public functions (to the extent that the Conservatives can accuse it of back-door privatisation with an almost straight face, as they did yesterday over the Health Service). How long will it be before some of the "middle ranking" staff are no longer in the public sector but instead are employees of private companies?

(Again, this may sound paranoid, but proper drafting and implementation of laws is not a core competence in the UK: there were reports on the BBC that most councils were "forgotten" when a law on who could issue parking tickets was changed. I'd provide a link to the story here, but there's nothing on the BBC website - I hope they didn't make up the report, or get it totally wrong. Others did hear the report, though, so it wasn't just me. Honest!)

[ktabic]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I think we've all become used to proliferation in security agencies, but I find it hard to believe that there are 792 (and, presumably, counting) of them.

There are no where near that many security agencies. Most of the groups that can use RIPA have nothing to do with security.

Such as:

HM Revenue & Customs
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Department of Health.
Department of Social Security.
Department of Trade and Industry.
National Assembly for Wales.
Any local authority
Environment Agency.
Financial Services Authority.
Food Standards Agency.
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
Personal Investment Authority.
The Post Office

Only allowed to use certain parts of the RIP Act:

Health and Safety Executive.
NHS Health Authoritys
NHS SHAs
NHS Trusts
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.

This is by no means a conclusive list.

[Ursa major]

That was my point, ktabic: security is one of the words that is used to quell debate and smuggle dubious laws past our MPs.


I'm not going to argue that some of the "snooping" done under the act is wrong: if it can be used to convict criminals and stop fraud, I'm all for it. I just have this view that where extraordinary actions are taken, they ought to be done only with the authority of a warrant approved by a judge (or other legal authority), not with a stroke of the pen by a middle manager.


(I find it odd that in the UK senior judges are almost encouraged to overturn democratically approved decisions, while in other areas the apparatus of law is bypassed.)

[Vladd67]

Terror laws aren’t a licence to snoop, councils warned | Vladd’s view of the World
An outbreak of common sense?

[Ursa major]

A review in the application of this law is in order. However, a plea by a voluntary body (not all councils are members of the Local Government Association, apparently) does not even constitute a guidline, let alone a direction to change behaviour.

So while this is a step in the right direction (no pun intended - honestly), a lot more needs to be done, particular with the regard to getting legal authorisation made a part of the process**.


** - I know this is often seen as merely adding to red tape, but having to explain the need for something to a third party should help better implementation of this law: in many (all) spheres of life, too many people are convinced that they're doing the right thing; it's only when they try to express their thought processes that it becomes apparent that they're mistaken.

[Vladd67]

Spy cameras: We are paranoid, but they’re still out to get us | Vladd’s view of the World

Having resigned as Shadow Home Secretary over the proposal to lock up terrorist suspects for 42 days without charging them - an issue with which he is at odds with public opinion -

I have seen this mentioned before but I haven't seen any figures that back up this statement.
There are too many people out there using the full powers of RIPA for the pettiest of reasons the idea that the 42 days without charge will not be misused is possibly naive. The idea that a middle manager in the council can read my emails or listen to my phone calls is just too disturbing.

[Vladd67]

Vladd's view of the World: Council uses terrorist snooping powers on 900 members of the public
Yet another example

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

I have seen this mentioned before but I haven't seen any figures that back up this statement.

I think the problem is that they are asking the wrong questions. Let me show you; I ask you:

1) Do you want Terrorists to be locked up until Police have enough time to collate the evidence they need to be prosecuted?

2) Do you want a camera in your local high street to capture criminals at work?

Most people are going to answer positively.

1) Would you like the Police to be able to lock you up without evidence or charges for 6 weeks while you are entirely innocent?

2) Would you like to be watched everywhere you go by cameras in every high street?

Most people are going to answer negatively.

People do not join the dots together.

[Vladd67]

Yes the Classic Yes Prime Minister scene
YouTube - Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want

[Overread]

just like our local supermarket. Tescos want in so they asked:
Does you current supermarket meet your needs?

knowing full well that our local is not the best and that it would not - so people voted that it was not good enough. So tescos say we need a new one - their one infact.