UK local government uses spy legislation to watch families

[Banquo's Ghost]

This kind of nonsense is precisely why government and their tiny-brained bureaucrats should never be given the kind of powers the War On TerrorismTM has enabled them to grab.

Each time civil liberties groups argue against these laws noting the historical precedents for such "mission creep" the proponents of draconian surveillance rebuff them with platitudes about "robust checks and balances" and "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

I guess the horse is long bolted, but it's depressing, nonetheless.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Council admits spying on family

Poole council admitted using RIPA powers on six occasions

A council has admitted spying on a family using laws to track criminals and terrorists to find out if they were really living in a school catchment.

A couple and their three children were put under surveillance without their knowledge by Poole Borough Council for more than two weeks.

The council admitted using powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) on six occasions in total.

Three of those were for suspected fraudulent school place applications.

It said two offers of school places were withdrawn as a consequence.

Human rights pressure group Liberty called the spying "ridiculously disproportionate" and "intrusive".

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said: "It's one thing to use covert surveillance in operations investigating terrorism and other serious crimes, but it has come to a pretty pass when this kind of intrusive activity is used to police school catchment areas.

"This is a ridiculously disproportionate use of RIPA and will undermine public trust in necessary and lawful surveillance."

RIPA legislation allows councils to carry out surveillance if it suspects criminal activity.
On its website, the Home Office says: "The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism."

It goes on to say the act allows the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources.

Poole council said it used the legislation to watch a family at home and in their daily movements because it wanted to know if they lived in the catchment area for a school, which they wanted their three-year-old daughter to attend.

It said directed surveillance was carried out by a council officer who was fully trained and authorised to exercise RIPA powers, once it had decided it may be a criminal matter.

Tim Martin, head of legal and democratic services at Poole Borough Council, said: "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.

"The council is keen to ensure that the information given by parents who apply for school places is true.

"This protects the majority of honest parents against the small number of questionable applications.

"An investigation may actually satisfy the council that the application is valid, as happened in this case."

[InsaneApache]

Yes, that's right, the old mantra trotted out by the authoritarian left about 'security' measures designed to 'protect' us in this day and age of terrorism. (I'm 48 and I can't remember a time when the UK didn't face terrorism)

ID cards, Stop and search, detention without trial, curtailment of the liberty to demonstrate and all the myriad of legislative diarrhoea spewed out by the most illiberal regime I've ever had the misfortune to endure in my lifetime.

Well kiddies, the truth is out. The reason the authorities want the power to snoop on you and your kith and kin is nothing short of political and social control. Welcome to ZaNu-Labour Britain.

"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.

"The council is keen to ensure that the information given by parents who apply for school places is true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

Now if this isn't an abuse of the law, I'll join JAG in signing the Red Flag.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Deleted. Pointless joke now that the threads are merged.

[InsaneApache]

Deleted. Pointless joke now that the threads are merged.

T'Was a very good joke nonetheless.

[InsaneApache]

Perhaps we should merge threads.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Deleted. Pointless joke now that the threads are merged.

[macsen rufus]

Edit: pointless joke deleted now Louis has deleted his

"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

This phrase is the one that most annoyed me in those dim-distant arguments with my parents about this sort of thing. It sounds so reasonable and instantly paints you as the crook if ever you object to State power. How about the corollary:

"If I've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to poke around in" ??? or "If I have nothing to hide, then I have a perfect right to go about my business undisturbed" ???

Gah indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Except of course, it seems these families DID have something to hide....

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, that's right, the old mantra trotted out by the authoritarian left about 'security' measures designed to 'protect' us in this day and age of terrorism.

strange how it was those on the right of the labour party that voted for this, with the help of course of the conservatives...

So what happened to the checks and balances! don't they need some kind of clearence from a judge for this kind of activity ?

This clearly shows the goveremnt shouldn't get more than 28 days, even 28 days seems a bit dodgy, i don't want to be locked up for 28 days while the police figure out if i was littering or not.

[Kaidonni]

LittleGrizzly>I think the judges are too busy letting terrorist preachers, those who have clearly abused animals, and hit-and-run drivers get off to stop Labour from doing crazy things. If only they'd listened...democracy just doesn't work (when idiots are allowed to vote even bigger idiots in power in a system that allows the party that got even less than 40% of the vote to rule the country...)!

EDIT: Deleted pointless sarcastic take because I was beginning to get too megalomaniacal and evil, and I can't risk everyone in the Backroom becoming my disciples - would take the fun out of conquering the Earth, the more supporters I have.

[naut]

don't they need some kind of clearence from a judge for this kind of activity ?

28 Authorisation of directed surveillance

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, the persons designated for the purposes of this section shall each have power to grant authorisations for the carrying out of directed surveillance.

(2) A person shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance unless he believes—

(a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and

(b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.

(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;

(d) in the interests of public safety;

(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or

(g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

30 Persons entitled to grant authorisations under ss. 28 and 29

(1) Subject to subsection (3), the persons designated for the purposes of sections 28 and 29 are the individuals holding such offices, ranks or positions with relevant public authorities as are prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order under this section.

(3) An order under this section may impose restrictions—

(a) on the authorisations under sections 28 and 29 that may be granted by any individual holding an office, rank or position with a specified public authority; and

(b) on the circumstances in which, or the purposes for which, such authorisations may be granted by any such individual.

32 Authorisation of intrusive surveillance

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, the Secretary of State and each of the senior authorising officers shall have power to grant authorisations for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance.

(2) Neither the Secretary of State nor any senior authorising officer shall grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance unless he believes—

(a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and

(b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

In short, no, since this case would fall under subsection 3b of either section 28 or 32. Anyone of rank can grant authorisation for most surveillance activities, other than covert operations.

[Vladimir]

Edit: pointless joke deleted now Louis has deleted his




This phrase is the one that most annoyed me in those dim-distant arguments with my parents about this sort of thing. It sounds so reasonable and instantly paints you as the crook if ever you object to State power. How about the corollary:

"If I've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to poke around in" ??? or "If I have nothing to hide, then I have a perfect right to go about my business undisturbed" ???

Gah indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Except of course, it seems these families DID have something to hide....

People who make those comments (nothing to hide, nothing to fear) do so out of ignorance. It's neither the information the government collects on you nor the means, it's the actions they take based on it. If normal, innocent actions are incorrectly perceived and actions are taken based on that perception, therein lies the rub.

No idea why I almost typed butt instead of rub. Must be the recent Backroom influence of those nefarious Dutch.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All this an you can't even deport terrorists:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...hts/article.do

It sounds so reasonable and instantly paints you as the crook if ever you object to State power.

It's never sounded reasonable to me.

CR

[naut]

All this an you can't even deport terrorists:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...hts/article.do

Wow, that's some major bollox right there. I think the UK needs to screw it's head back on.