In the UK next year will be 1984

**lynx** · 12-27-2005, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by JPaul

Originally Posted by lynx

Let me know when you've actually read up on the subject.

I've studied it in quite some depth, both read up on it and had it explained to me by experts.

Governments in Europe cannot "override" the ECHR, what would be the point in having it if they could.

Courts must also ensure that the ECHR is complied with. Hence so many cases falling foul of it, particularly Article 6.

Let me know when you actually know a wee bit about it. Nah, don't bother, coz' when you do you'll already know you were talking crap, so I won't have to bother.

Fine.

Except that the recent attempts to hold people for 90 days without trial or evidence would be contrary to Article 5 (Article 6 is irrelevant since no criminal charge has been brought), but the Terrorism Bill has still gone through, albeit reduced to 28 days, but that's still contrary to Article 5. Perhaps you were away when that was discussed, it got very little coverage.

You might also like to consider Article 8, Paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Now compare that with RIPA, Section 3:
"Lawful interception without an interception warrant".

The two are incompatible, but AFAIK there have been no challenges against RIPA. Why? Because they don't bother to tell anyone they've intercepted their mail, or tapped their phone etc.

You still think there are safeguards? Life must look lovely through those rose coloured glasses.

**JPaul** · 12-27-2005, 11:55 AM

You really don't know what you are talking about. For example right to privacy (the issue here) is not absolute

You might also like to consider Article 8, Paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Now compare that with RIPA, Section 3:
"Lawful interception without an interception warrant".

people have the right to privacy, however Governments have the right to breach it, under certain conditions. RIPA give the legal framework for those conditions. The safeguards are there to ensure that the breaches are only made when the conditions are met.

If this were not the case then the investigation of crime would be absolutely impossible. It is difficult to see how anyone could not understand that. Why would we sign up to a convention which precluded us from prying into the activities of people who were suspected of serious criminal conduct.

Oh and read a bit more about the "phone tapping" thing

Section 3 of RIPA, (Archbold 25-370) provides that an interception without a warrant will be lawful in certain specified circumstances.

These include consensual interceptions where both parties consent, or where one party consents and surveillance by means of interception has been authorised as 'directed surveillance' in accordance with Part II of the Act, e.g. in a blackmail scenario < refer to Covert Surveillance elsewhere in this guidance>.

A warrant would normally be required, however in certain circumstances and if other authorities are in place it may not be required. The much more common position would be Section 5

Section 5 of RIPA, (Archbold 25-372) allows for interception to be carried out where a warrant has been obtained from the Secretary of State. Section 5(2) provides that the Secretary of State shall not issue an intercept warrant unless he believes that the warrant is necessary on one of the grounds set out in section 5 (3) - these include the prevention and detection of serious crime - and that the conduct authorised must be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.

This is all auditable by the surveillance commissioners. I assume you take them to be corrupt until proven otherwise.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/

**lynx** · 12-27-2005, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

This is all auditable by the surveillance commissioners. I assume you take them to be corrupt until proven otherwise.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/

Why would I believe them to be corrupt. I'm sure they do a very nice job of auditing everything they are asked to audit.

However, I'm not so naive as to believe that they are told about every interception.

Going back to section 3 of RIPA, you omitted one of the most important parts:

(3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if-
(a) it is conduct by or on behalf of a person who provides a postal service or a telecommunications service; and
(b) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service or with the enforcement, in relation to that service, of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunications services.

In other words, if parliament makes provision for it (not a minister) then it is legal. That is exactly what I told you earlier, you seemed not to understand.

**JPaul** · 12-27-2005, 02:36 PM

Of course parliament makes provision for it, that's what law is about. The bit I omited states that such warrants are only legal if they fall within the law. I thought it pointless to include it. The law often includes bits like that, because by it's nature it has to be pedantic.

Part 3 interceptions would be rarer than part 5, which are the ones the Secretary of State authorises, having been given the power by the act.

In any case, what you told me earlier on was that so long as Parliament passed a law then it effectively "override the ECHR". That was and is pish. If a Court decides that a Law is not ECHR compatible then the case potentially falls and they report their findings. The UK can then be told to change the law either by repealing or amending it, to make it ECHR compatible.

I give up, there is only so much ill-informed repetition even I am willing to endure. You cannot just read small parts of acts of parliament and expect to understand them. They are the subject of discussion (recorded in the Hansard notes which must be read with the act to understand the intent of the legislators) and legal interpretation by the Courts.