By silicon.com staff, 5 November 2009 12:39
NEWS
Local authorities must cut down on using covert-surveillance techniques to investigate petty offences, the government has said.
Ripa (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) granted public authorities the power to use surveillance to investigate crimes such as terrorism - but councils have attracted criticism for using them to detect petty offences such as dog-fouling.
Speaking on Monday at the Royal Society of Arts, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "[the public] will not accept such powers being used to spy on people who put their rubbish out on the wrong day, or let their dogs foul the streets, because this is clearly not proportionate".
Government has said local councils must cut back on Ripa surveillance techniques
(Photo credit: Paul Kehrer)
For more on this story, see Government curbs councils' Ripa powers on ZDNet UK.
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. karen challinor
placing the authorisation in the hands of senior council officials rather than junior ones and offering training in the tricky subject of "is RIPA appropriate in this case" is not going to prevent councils abusing RIPA
use of RIPA will still be down the discretion of the council concerned and adherence to these new guidelines is still strictly voluntary
we don't need guidelines or courses we need a rethink on whether councils actually need RIPA at all and if they do then under precisely what circumstances it can be used
2. micropixel
and about time too; of course when it comes to people applying their children for the wrong school, will that be deemed to be trivial usage ? ah well that's different, probably ..?? and will this also apply to central government i wonder; you know, using cameras to track each and everyone of us trolling up and down the motorways, just for the hell of it... well actually to help the highways agency work out average vehicle speed times, so that it can put even more irritating messages on the matrix boards ? then again there's the city centre cctv stuff.sorry, starting to lose the marbles again...hmmm
3. Carl Barron
This over-surveillance is also a threat to Business
As I have said before, it is most likely that large International Companies, are becoming increasingly aware that all of their Business Transmissions through the UK are at risk, and important contracts may well be in jeopardy due to interception.
There is also the fact that ‘UK’s Big Brother’ may find he has an even ‘Bigger Brother’ watching him. This surveillance and Data Collection Technology may already be being used by Counter Intelligence Services from other counties.
As already disclosed many times via the media, the Data the Government does have is very loosely guarded. Laptops left in public places, CD discs, DVD Discs, and Pen Drives left in public places.
To cap it all they still want to store more of our private and personal data.
British National Security is becoming a bad joke at our expense.
Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk
4. Richard Davies
Surely effective safeguards should have been put in place from day one and be constantly monitored to ensure that this type of abuse doesn't take place.
You just can't trust the people in charge of these systems can you!?!?
This is exactly why I don't like seeing local councils with this sort of power...its not the technology...its the people using it / who have access to it and the lack of control by those supposed to monitor it.
Things will only get worse as the government fudge together more of our personal data into poorly designed / over budget systems / databases etc...perhaps a little seperation between systems is a good thing just to stop these people from having access to too much information which they will ultimately abuse and use in a way that is not intended.
The central government are just as bad!
5. Jeremy Wickins
Simple solution - no surveillance without a court oversight. In general, court order needed for any surveillance. Exceptional fast-track for serious crimes only, but with regular judicial oversight of continuing need. Serious personal and institutional penalties for breach of these requirements. Absolutely no short cuts for non-police/intelligence bodies - case must be made, and judge to ensure that privacy is the default, only to be breached in exceptional need. This to apply to all surveillance that affects the general public, thus including local and national government-run CCTV schemes, such as roads and town centres, and probably including privately run roadside cameras such as Trafficmaster. Anyone else that wants to put CCTV cameras anywhere that the public goes (shops, public transport, pubs, etc) must have a licence which requires adherence with DP and privacy laws, and a minimum standard for data retention/data security, with serious financial and personal liberty penalties for breach.
It isn't rocket science - it just needs political will.