This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just referenced this to check for a commencement date and was appalled at the article - it's not factually accurate. Start with "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).[1]"
The original Act names all these :
1 Any police force.
2 The National Criminal Intelligence Service.
3 The National Crime Squad.
4 The Serious Fraud Office.
The intelligence services
5 Any of the intelligence services.
The armed forces
6 Any of Her Majesty’s forces.
The revenue departments
7 The Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
8 The Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Government departments
9 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
10 The Ministry of Defence.
11 The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
12 The Department of Health.
13 The Home Office.
14 The Department of Social Security.
15 The Department of Trade and Industry.
The National Assembly for Wales
16 The National Assembly for Wales.
Local authorities
17 Any local authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the [1999 c. 27.] Local Government Act 1999).
Other bodies
18 The Environment Agency.
19 The Financial Services Authority.
20 The Food Standards Agency.
21 The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
22 The Personal Investment Authority.
23 The Post Office.
Part II Relevant authorities for the purposes only of s. 28
The Health and Safety Executive
24 The Health and Safety Executive.
NHS bodies in England and Wales
25 A Health Authority established under section 8 of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977.
26 A Special Health Authority established under section 11 of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977.
27 A National Heath Service trust established under section 5 of the [1990 c. 19.] National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
28 The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
I propose to make a full scale rewrite to this, unless someone 'in authority' suggests otherwise. (FYI - I work in the UK teaching investigation law, so I know that of which I speak!!) Tattooed Librarian ( talk) 14:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is rather cryptic on the nature of the burden placed on ISPs, and it's civil liberties implications. As I understand it the ISPs are required to maintain a database of all internet access by all their clients: so every web page requested, email sent, etc, has it's header information (but not the full content) recorded by the ISP, to be made available to various agencies on request (originally only with a warrant I believe, but that may have been weakened; they certainly wanted to open it up to a much wider group of agencies). The data thus collected was to be maintained for seven years, if I remember correctly. Effectively this would be a form of pre-emptive surveillance, where they do the surveillance first, and only decide later if they need to use it. There were a number of other provisions in the original bill. For example, it would be an imprisonable offence for a ISP employee to fail to comply with a request (properly made) to disclose this information. It would also be an imprisonable offence to inform the person under surveillance that this information had been disclosed, without limitation on time, and even if no charges or other action was ever taken against the client in question. Another concern, at the time, was that the bill was loosely worded in such a way that it was not clear what scope of services where included (for example, mobile phone text messages, telephone calls).
Any reason for this not being at Regulation of Investigatory Powers? Were there two? Martin [22:24, 20 May 2003 (UTC)]
"The accused must prove that they do not have the key, claiming to have mislaid or forgotten it might not be accepted as a defence." What if the accused claims never to have possessed the key? The article is not clear on this point; the text of the Act seems to imply that a prosecutor needs to prove that the accused possessed the key at some time, but it isn't entirely clear and various popular accounts suggest the opposite.
The title is the Regulation, not the Provision. of investigatory powers. Headlines about the application of the Act to local Councils included claims of 'Dustbin men reading your e-amils' whereas the application was to limit powers already contained in e.g. Trade Marks Act
"It should be noted that a number of these criticisms were based on the incorrect perception that RIPA gave Local Authorities additional powers. The decision to introduce RIPA was at least in part based on the realisation that there was no specific prohibition on the use of directed surveillance, which was in common use by Local Authority officers with enforcement responsibiities. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Did section 3 not come into effect last October? Or am I confusing it with something else? Prlewis0 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The family involved within the Poole Borough Council incident, claimed that the purpose of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was to track both criminals and terrorists.
The use of the word 'terrorist' in this context is inflammatory. Indeed the long title of the Act contains no reference to terrorists or terrorism. The Act was however designed to regulate the carrying out of surveillance, an aim to which it appeared to achieve in this case. As after extensive surveillance, the family were exonerated from any 'criminal' wrongdoing and their daughter was awarded a place at the school of her choice.
Whist it can be argued that the resort to RIPA was disproportionate, inflammatory language such as "there have already been accusations of overkill following a case where the act was used by council bureaucrats to put three young children and their parents under surveillance to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area" should be avoided.
Leebobs ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The link to the statute law database is absolutely NOT the current amended version- as far as I am aware, no fully amended version exists. I can speak mainly from the perspective of disclosure of communications data (Part 1, section 2), but I have looked into this at great length. The version linked to is (as far as I'm aware) exactly the same text as the link to the "original text".
The number of changes made to the actual text over the past 8 years are relatively infrequent, coming notably in 2003, 2005 and 2006, but the major changes have been in the list of Authorities, which was significantly expanded in 2003 and 2006, and altered by Myriad other acts which involved the creation/deletion/merging of authorities (e.g. HMRC, SOCA). The text linked to contains none of these changes, and thus is being mis-represented. (N.B. "Authority" ="type of agency" - RIPA mostly just specifies classes of agency, e.g. "A UK council" rather than naming specific agencies)
By way of evidence, please see the "Update Status Warning" on
The Act itself, the page showing some of the
Amendments to the act, and the interface through which you can find primary and secondary legislation which has modified the act:
RIPA- Tables of legislative effects.
How should this matter proceed? I'm sure there are people there much better equipped to progress this than I.
(Leveret)
82.22.6.4 (
talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to confirm the case of the chap jailed for refusing to hand over his encryption keys & can find no references outside one website and 'reprint' of that article. Whoever posted this in the first place, please reference the case properly or remove it...
Tattooed Librarian 11:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reference. This case was extremely well reported and it's not hard to find references, googling for "Oliver Drage" will turn up hundreds.
Amoe ( talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Tattooed Librarian ( talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Did Oliver Drage ever get out of prison? I know he was sentenced for 4 months, but there seemed to be the possibility that they would throw him back in jail again if he still refused to give out the password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The summary of this article doesn't really meet NPOV guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdraymon ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just referenced this to check for a commencement date and was appalled at the article - it's not factually accurate. Start with "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).[1]"
The original Act names all these :
1 Any police force.
2 The National Criminal Intelligence Service.
3 The National Crime Squad.
4 The Serious Fraud Office.
The intelligence services
5 Any of the intelligence services.
The armed forces
6 Any of Her Majesty’s forces.
The revenue departments
7 The Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
8 The Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Government departments
9 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
10 The Ministry of Defence.
11 The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
12 The Department of Health.
13 The Home Office.
14 The Department of Social Security.
15 The Department of Trade and Industry.
The National Assembly for Wales
16 The National Assembly for Wales.
Local authorities
17 Any local authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the [1999 c. 27.] Local Government Act 1999).
Other bodies
18 The Environment Agency.
19 The Financial Services Authority.
20 The Food Standards Agency.
21 The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
22 The Personal Investment Authority.
23 The Post Office.
Part II Relevant authorities for the purposes only of s. 28
The Health and Safety Executive
24 The Health and Safety Executive.
NHS bodies in England and Wales
25 A Health Authority established under section 8 of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977.
26 A Special Health Authority established under section 11 of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977.
27 A National Heath Service trust established under section 5 of the [1990 c. 19.] National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
28 The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
I propose to make a full scale rewrite to this, unless someone 'in authority' suggests otherwise. (FYI - I work in the UK teaching investigation law, so I know that of which I speak!!) Tattooed Librarian ( talk) 14:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is rather cryptic on the nature of the burden placed on ISPs, and it's civil liberties implications. As I understand it the ISPs are required to maintain a database of all internet access by all their clients: so every web page requested, email sent, etc, has it's header information (but not the full content) recorded by the ISP, to be made available to various agencies on request (originally only with a warrant I believe, but that may have been weakened; they certainly wanted to open it up to a much wider group of agencies). The data thus collected was to be maintained for seven years, if I remember correctly. Effectively this would be a form of pre-emptive surveillance, where they do the surveillance first, and only decide later if they need to use it. There were a number of other provisions in the original bill. For example, it would be an imprisonable offence for a ISP employee to fail to comply with a request (properly made) to disclose this information. It would also be an imprisonable offence to inform the person under surveillance that this information had been disclosed, without limitation on time, and even if no charges or other action was ever taken against the client in question. Another concern, at the time, was that the bill was loosely worded in such a way that it was not clear what scope of services where included (for example, mobile phone text messages, telephone calls).
Any reason for this not being at Regulation of Investigatory Powers? Were there two? Martin [22:24, 20 May 2003 (UTC)]
"The accused must prove that they do not have the key, claiming to have mislaid or forgotten it might not be accepted as a defence." What if the accused claims never to have possessed the key? The article is not clear on this point; the text of the Act seems to imply that a prosecutor needs to prove that the accused possessed the key at some time, but it isn't entirely clear and various popular accounts suggest the opposite.
The title is the Regulation, not the Provision. of investigatory powers. Headlines about the application of the Act to local Councils included claims of 'Dustbin men reading your e-amils' whereas the application was to limit powers already contained in e.g. Trade Marks Act
"It should be noted that a number of these criticisms were based on the incorrect perception that RIPA gave Local Authorities additional powers. The decision to introduce RIPA was at least in part based on the realisation that there was no specific prohibition on the use of directed surveillance, which was in common use by Local Authority officers with enforcement responsibiities. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Did section 3 not come into effect last October? Or am I confusing it with something else? Prlewis0 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The family involved within the Poole Borough Council incident, claimed that the purpose of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was to track both criminals and terrorists.
The use of the word 'terrorist' in this context is inflammatory. Indeed the long title of the Act contains no reference to terrorists or terrorism. The Act was however designed to regulate the carrying out of surveillance, an aim to which it appeared to achieve in this case. As after extensive surveillance, the family were exonerated from any 'criminal' wrongdoing and their daughter was awarded a place at the school of her choice.
Whist it can be argued that the resort to RIPA was disproportionate, inflammatory language such as "there have already been accusations of overkill following a case where the act was used by council bureaucrats to put three young children and their parents under surveillance to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area" should be avoided.
Leebobs ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The link to the statute law database is absolutely NOT the current amended version- as far as I am aware, no fully amended version exists. I can speak mainly from the perspective of disclosure of communications data (Part 1, section 2), but I have looked into this at great length. The version linked to is (as far as I'm aware) exactly the same text as the link to the "original text".
The number of changes made to the actual text over the past 8 years are relatively infrequent, coming notably in 2003, 2005 and 2006, but the major changes have been in the list of Authorities, which was significantly expanded in 2003 and 2006, and altered by Myriad other acts which involved the creation/deletion/merging of authorities (e.g. HMRC, SOCA). The text linked to contains none of these changes, and thus is being mis-represented. (N.B. "Authority" ="type of agency" - RIPA mostly just specifies classes of agency, e.g. "A UK council" rather than naming specific agencies)
By way of evidence, please see the "Update Status Warning" on
The Act itself, the page showing some of the
Amendments to the act, and the interface through which you can find primary and secondary legislation which has modified the act:
RIPA- Tables of legislative effects.
How should this matter proceed? I'm sure there are people there much better equipped to progress this than I.
(Leveret)
82.22.6.4 (
talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to confirm the case of the chap jailed for refusing to hand over his encryption keys & can find no references outside one website and 'reprint' of that article. Whoever posted this in the first place, please reference the case properly or remove it...
Tattooed Librarian 11:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reference. This case was extremely well reported and it's not hard to find references, googling for "Oliver Drage" will turn up hundreds.
Amoe ( talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Tattooed Librarian ( talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Did Oliver Drage ever get out of prison? I know he was sentenced for 4 months, but there seemed to be the possibility that they would throw him back in jail again if he still refused to give out the password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The summary of this article doesn't really meet NPOV guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdraymon ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)