Councils are continuing to use RIPA to investigate petty incidents, despite growing outrage about these activities.
The latest event is in Poole where the council used RIPA to spy on people shell fishing
“Poole council used a covert surveillance team to gather evidence of shellfish being illegally gathered in Poole Harbour, Dorset.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1952551/Anti-terror-law-used-to-snoop-on-fishermen.html
Damn those pesky kids with their crab lines and nets!
he conservative MP, Brian Binley, pictured below, has called for local councils to stop using RIPA powers to to catch petty crimes/incidents.
Brain voted against both the Labour’s new anti-terror laws and the introduction of the ID card.
“An MP called today for a halt in the use of surveillance laws by local councils after finding out they have been used to catch dog owners who let their pets foul on grass.
Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South, condemned his local borough council for using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to act as “Dick Tracy” detectives.”
http://www.24dash.com/news/Local_Government/2008-05-21-MPs-calls-on-councils-to-stop-acting-like-Dick-Tracy
Croydon County Council has reportedly been using the powers under RIPA to conduct surveillance on its residents, with 6 reported uses in 12 months.
Some of these uses including surveillance on counterfeiters, others include those fly tipping.
The question is not “is it right to stop criminals, and, where necessary use covert methods?”; but rather “should councils, and hired private individuals and companies, with none of the checks and balances of law enforcement agencies, be engaged in covert surveillance of residents, some of whom are bound to be innocent?”
Section 12 of RIPA states that the Communication Service Providers (CSPs) are “obliged to maintain interception capability”.
If the CSPs think the request is unreasonable (made under RIPA Section 12) then they can appeal to the Technical Advice Board (TAB) – which are described under Section 13 of RIPA.
Under the RIPA act (Section 13) there is a Technical Advisory Board which are supposed to liase with and advice the Home Secretary. The technical advice board is a balance of industry and government representatives under an independent chairperson.
The role of the technical advice board is to advise “the Secretary of State on any requirements placed on communications service providers to maintain a reasonable interception capability.”
About RIPA – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.
RIPA makes provision for:
* the interception of communications
* the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications
* the carrying out of surveillance
* the use of covert human intelligence sources
* access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords
* the appointment of Commissioners and the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to oversee these issue
Following on from spying and following familes who are trying to get their children into school local councils are now using their powers under RIPA to spy on litter louts, and dog owners who allow their dog to foul.
Some local authorities have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) more than 100 times in the last 12 months to conduct surveillance. The findings, obtained by the Press Association news agency, come from 46 of the 468 local authorities in the UK. BBC Article
The RIPA act is stated, by the government, as being for “using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.”
RIPA was specifically aimed at targeting serious criminals. However local councils have now started to use these wide spread powers for spying on residents.
RIPA used to spy on family
The latest case councils spying on the general public has been conducted by Poole local Council. In this case Poole county council organized covert surveillance and covert following of a family, to try an ascertain if their child should go to a particular school.
Below is the log created by Poole County Council during the surveillance.
At which point will the councils think that hiring “private detectives” to follow young mothers and children around is a not good idea? We know that CCTV operators have misused their powers on several occasions, why would the people conducting this surveillance behave any better? Would you like your child to and wife to be followed by a low paid, unqualified individual, with no career path, nothing to lose, and a voyeuristic interest?
The councils get the authority to spy on the public by using a law called “RIPA - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This law was originally designed “for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism“. However, more and more it has being used for minor offences
In Poole, the local council who authorized the surveillance of a family, have stuck by their decision, despite the application of RIPA being an incredibly heavy handed and disproportionate approach to dealing a child’s application. Tim Martin, Head of Borough of Poole’s Legal and Democratic Service stated that “The council is committed to investigating the small minority of people who attempt to break the law and affect the quality of life for the majority of law-abiding residents in Poole. On a small number of occasions, RIPA procedures have been used to investigate potentially fraudulent applications for school places. In such circumstances, we have considered it appropriate to treat the matter as a potential criminal matter.”
From this we can that not only do they think its ok, but they have done it before and will do it again
While the Tim Martin may have thought this at the time he may now be forced to retract this. The Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton has written to councils warning of overzealous use of the powers could alienate the public and their use could be disproportionate.