[Gllug] Editors

[Bruce Richardson]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 7/30/01, 4:04:17 PM, home at alexhudson.com wrote regarding Re: 
[Gllug] Editors:


> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:47:08PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > This is irrelevant.  RIP means there doesn't have to be any question
> > of involvement in a crime.

> I don't think it does. RIP gives _no_ new powers of interception of
> material.

Untrue.  RIP specifies a range of interception activities for which no 
juidicial oversight is needed.

> You need a warrant to get material. There has to be evidence to
> support the warrant.

But not evidence of criminal activity on your part.  The terms under 
which a warrant may be granted are so wide and vague as to be 
meaningless.  These terms, the justifying evidence and the existence 
of the warrant itself may be withheld - it can be a crime to reveal 
them.

This is a law begging to be abused.  If a law is open to abuse, sooner 
or later somebody will abuse it.  This applies to cabinet ministers 
every bit as much as people living in council estates.

It's not as if similar laws haven't been abused in the past.  Ask the 
Matrix Churchill directors or Duncan Campbell.

-- 

Bruce




-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug