Re: Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

In article 
<AM2PR07MB05955F5A515FDC8B44394CF1AA290-YiQoi4jzvIRgyz9Fy26pVTzdlHkvsOLVvxpqHgZTriVhl2p70BpVqQ@public.gmane.org
ok.com>, Andrew Cormack <[email protected]> writes

>Can't remember whether it was technically "found illegal", or whether 
>the ECJ vaporised the Data Retention Directive first. But there was a 
>lot of concern that the purposes for which data could be disclosed 
>under RIPA were wider than the ones for which it could be retained 
>under the DRD/DRR.

The whole point of RIPA was that disclosure was required *if you 
happened to have* the data.

If you didn't have it, all the authorities could do is ask you to start 
gathering it for specific individuals.

The various Data Retention schemes (of which this is merely the most 
recent) had their own lists of things which communications providers 
should retain speculatively for all subscribers.

And yes, I agree that until now those measures have had much shorter 
lists of "thing the retain" than RIPA has of "things to disclose it you 
happen to have them".
-- 
Roland Perry