RE: Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Can't remember whether it was technically "found illegal", or whether the E=
CJ vaporised the Data Retention Directive first. But there was a lot of con=
cern that the purposes for which data could be disclosed under RIPA were wi=
der than the ones for which it could be retained under the DRD/DRR.

IPBill "fixes" that by having the same long list of purposes for both reten=
tion and disclosure. E.g. both are now permitted for "crime" rather than re=
quiring "serious crime" as the old retention regs did

Andrew



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces-QGMSyCZBOSwv4zxTlrOuLwNdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org [mailto:ukcrypto-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 04 November 2015 20:09
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
>=20
> In article <563A428C.7010102-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]>, Peter Fairbrother
> <zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]> writes
> >Otherwise it seems largely to repeat the (already-found illegal) status
> >quo of DRIPA, RIPA 2000, Police Act, ACTSA 2001, JSA 2013, Intelligence
> >Services Act 1994 etc
>=20
> JOOI, what has been already-found illegal about RIPAs rules for
> disclosure of comms data?
> --
> Roland Perry