In reply to elsewhere:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Obtaining communications data (sender/recipients & not content) should require judicial approval to prevent fishing expeditions.
>
I appreciate that might be your opinion. Unfortunately it will require retraction of a number of laws already in existence. The requirement to go before a judge would have the knock on effect of making investigations much harder and perhaps more importantly to victim's much slower. And by investigations I am talking of a typical use of this data which might be to obtain comms data from the mobile phone of a suspect in a rape and phone of the victim in that offence to establish any contact/communication between the parties.
As it is the mechanism in place to prevent fishing expeditions is a complete justification for the request which is vetted then submitted to the appropriate rank of officer for authorisation. It is subject to review by the Information Commissioners and is recorded and retained in an auditable manner. It is also governed by RIPA legislation.
>
> That legal distinction not credible beacuse the sender/recipient information is in the content of the web page (more precisely message bodies of http requests & http responses). The sender/recipient cannot be obtained without logging & accessing web page content.
>
I am not enough of an internet buff to be able to comment in any detail. My understanding is that it would be more related to for example hotmail saying that a subject has sent emails to X, Y and Z on these dates and times. Of Skype saying that this "username" has contacted the user names X, Y and Z at these times and dates. No content provided.
>
> That requirement should not be imposed on others who have access to my comminications either. If I'm a suspect get a warrant, otherwise get stuffed!
>
As previous. Currently communications data (not content) is available without a warrant.
>
> Basic data protection says retention should be minimised, data should be used only for the stated purpose it was gathered for (eg billing of usage) and data should be deleted as soon as possible.
>
The Data Protection Act is overridden by the Code of Practice brought in under Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It is also subject to the European Data Retention directive. Some countries - notably Germany have ruled that the directive is in breach of it's laws in relation to privacy.
> I do not agree that police or govt should have access to that data without a warrant or a warrant within 24hrs. My digital data should be protected just like any information I have at home. Privacy is worthy of protection regardless of the medium of communication or storage.
>
I totally agree with you in principle. The right to privacy, coupled with the right to freedom of expression are pretty basic rights.
Those rights are not carte blanche to act as you want without fear of any consequences, hence when they were enshrined in the convention of human rights they were established as qualified rights, which could be interfered with by the state for specific reasons - such as detection of crime, and under specific legal frameworks - hence RIPA.
As I have mentioned before - much of the data you want to be protected by a judge is already available and a warrant is not required.
>
> The issue is not fear of conviction. The issue is freedom from an electronic Stasi.
The problem as I see it is that those opposed to state regulation or interference in their perceived privacy are, almost by definition the same class of people who almost automatically distrust the state and everything they do. The argument of "the thin end of the wedge" is rolled out with depressing regularity.
The sad reality is that the state really isn't interested in them. We have far too much to do dealing with real crime and real criminals.
At the risk of being accused of stereotyping, those who have these views tend to be educated and influential and there is a very real risk that in trying to tread a fine line between human rights and state powers, that line ends up being drawn so far on the side of rights that the state has it's arms so firmly tied it is unable to investigate anything.
This often isn't helped by the lack of exposure (stereotyping again I know!) that many of these people have to the crimes that the state requires these powers to investigate.
Sadly this is reflected with comments like "Paedo 9/11". It's easy to sneer and mock what you haven't had to endure - and as a case in point - the internet is a key enabling tool for pretty horrific sexual abuse of children.