'Big Brother' councils in Gloucestershire use spy laws to track cheats

“HucklePhil,
Your argument is false. It implies that the innocent (those with nothing to hide) are never punished by the system. They are... so patently the innocent have something to fear from over-use of authority. Guess that doesnt trip so well off the keyboard when one is on the soapbox?

Of interest what about the phrase "no smoke without fire". Where do you stand on that?”

“Or the judge who tried to sentence a teenager for rape instead having sex with an under-age girl? See, it doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. People can make really dumb mistakes, and they aren't always corrected so easily.”

“Having said that, you should listen to 'Crossing Continents' on Radio 4 right now. A Japanese guy didn't want to tell police, in front of his mother, that he was out of work, so they ended up forcing a confession out of him for a crime he didn't commit, after they found out he wasn't working at the time of the crime. There are all kinds of things we hide from people, even, or especially, the ones closest to us.”

“Huckie Phil,

I should have said 'authorities', not 'the authorities', so as not to be all-encompassing (pace 'occupied territories').

Not everyone lies, even I'm not *that* cynical. However, it's not only shadows that conceal the truth. Mud does, too, and you can be standing in the bright sunlight and still have people believing the worst of you, if cowards sling enough of it from under cover, beyond hope of challenge.”

“I lean towards the "nothing to hide then nothing to fear" camp, although I can't help feeling that a little more attention to folk with unexplained wealth might help out the national coffers in these straightened times.

As for "Big Brother" tactics though – the council can't hold a candle to TIG Moderators!”

“I think perhaps I ought to explain a few facts to people about Regulatory Investigative Powers Act known as R.I.P.A.
This act was brought about to standardise and enshrine procedures for conducting surveillance and the gathering of information by investigators from third parties. IT DID NOT INTRODUCE NEW POWERS but instead set some rules to control when certain investigative procedures were applied. Up until R.I.P.A, if an individual was suspected of committing a criminal offence an organisation such as the police could, for example, chose to put that individual under surveillance. There was nothing in law to dictate how serious that offence would have to be or whether that action would be necessary or proportionate. These factors do now have to be considered and a line manager has to authorise such activity for it to be legal. Not getting that authorisation does not make the action illegal but makes any evidence gained inadmissible. When this act came about it was intended to apply to very serious offences and specifically terrorism but an inadvertant side effect was that the wording made it apply to everyday offences. It was never envisaged that this was what would happen. I will give you an example. A police officer receives information that Fred Bloggs drives from home to work every morning and he knows that he is disqualified from driving. He decides that on his morning shift he will park close to Bloggs home where he can see his car in an attempt to catch him driving. Believe it or not this is technically classed as surveillance and requires authorisation from an inspector and for observation logs to be kept etc, etc! How ridiculous, the act was never intended to impinge on everyday bread and butter policing like this nor was it intended to impinge on the housing benefits officer doing his everyday work checking out whether housing benefits claims were genuine or fraudulent.
All this sort of work went on prior to R.I.P.A because that is what we pay investigators to do - investigate. It is not a snoopers charter as it's intention was not there to stop investigation rather it was put in place to make sure that evidence gained could not be rejected by the courts as a result of spurious defence efforts to muddy the waters and prevent such evidence from being admitted. By creating a proper structure of authority enshrined in an act of parliament,all the prosecutor had to show is that the act had been complied with and it would then be impossible for the evidence obtained to be excluded.
So please, stop referring to it as a snoopers charter and forget about the act. What you should be asking yourselves is should the authority involved have concerned themselves investigating this matter? No more, no less.”

“Ysedra - if your statement implies that ALL authorities abuse powers, then the fault lies not with the powers available to them but with the individuals. I don't accept the assumption, though.

I CAN accept an assumption that SOME authorities abuse powers (let's not debate what %). But even then, even if they do so, I have no fear of prosecution as I am (broadly) innocent. For instance, 'they' can tap my 'phone as often as they like and all they'll discover is that my life is as incontroversial in private as it is in public.

Hence my implication - only those with something to hide in the shadows fear the torchlight!”

“EllJay1, I'm saying that there are two kinds of people. Those who haven't yet learned that the authorities abuse their powers, and those who have.”

“Ysedra - please explain in more detail. I am a little confused.”

“Huckie Phil,

Your statement, 'Those with nothing to hide have [n?]ever worried, minded or objected to any activity broadly described as 'Big Brother', makes the unwarranted assumption that people with nothing to hide have *not* objected to 'big Brother' style activities. You can't prove that, and it's more than likely that plenty of people could prove otherwise. Is that 'wrong' enough for you?

People who have not been prove in any way to have broken the law have plenty to fear from unwarranted assumptions, if only in terms of the personal stress that can result. You may be fortunate enough to not have had personal experience of that yet, but this doesn't mean you won't in future...”