Consultation opens on amendments to the UK Investigatory Powers Act

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by deBoetie, Nov 30, 2017.

  1. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,608
    Location:
    UK
  2. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,608
    Location:
    UK
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ruled-unlawful-appeal-ruling-snoopers-charter

    In a further adverse judgement on the previous Dripa 2014 Act (which the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was based on), the UK Court of Appeal found that the Act was unlawful in that it did not restrict the accessing of confidential personal phone and web browsing records to investigations of serious crime, and allowed police and other public bodies to authorise their own access without adequate oversight.

    This means that additional changes will be needed on top of the ones proposed in the consultation in order to make it minimally compliant with cases that have found against the government already.
     
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    9,213
    Location:
    Slovenia
    High Court Rules Part of Snoopers’ Charter Illegal
    https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/high-court-rules-part-of-snoopers/
     
  4. mood

    mood Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,059
    UK.gov agrees to narrow 'serious crime' definition for slurping comms data
    July 11, 2018
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/...s_crime_definition_for_sucking_up_comms_data/
     
  5. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,608
    Location:
    UK
    @mood - incredibly disappointing response, but completely consistent with the Home Office MO of claiming compliance while offering minimal concession. The justification for the very low bar was in relation to some specific offences, so the obvious minimal and proportionate response was just to specify those offences. But the way they've done it means they can conduct mass surveillance for a very wide range of offences.

    Which all means of course is that they will be found non-compliant again in future, but they've gained years of unlawful operation and increased the costs of those opposing these unlawful laws. And maybe they hope that a UK Supreme Court will be less concerned with pesky Rights.
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.