Talk:Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

message: The title is the Regulation,  not the Provision. of investigatory powers.   Headlines about the application of the Act to local Councils included claims of 'Dustbin men reading your e-amils' whereas the application was to limit powers already contained in e.g. Trade Marks Act
::since someoner did not like the following comments on the main page, I repeat them hee
"It should be noted that a number of these criticisms were based on the incorrect perception that RIPA gave Local Authorities additional powers. The decision to introduce RIPA was at least in part based on the realisation that there was no specific prohibition on the use of directed surveillance, which was in common use by Local Authority officers with enforcement responsibiities. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is entirely correct - and is as annoying as the common press use of the term 'anti-terrorism legislation' when discussing RIPA.  Note that Local Authorities are not required to use RIPA to authorise surveillance (see the OSC website Q&A) and that non-RIPA surveillance is perfectly admissible.Tattooed Librarian 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding of effects

message: Did section 3 not come into effect last October? Or am I confusing it with something else?Prlewis0 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section III 

message: The link to the statute law database is absolutely NOT the current amended version- as far as I am aware, no fully amended version exists. I can speak mainly from the perspective of disclosure of communications data (Part 1, section 2), but I have looked into this at great length. The version linked to is (as far as I'm aware) exactly the same text as the link to the "original text".
The number of changes made to the actual text over the past 8 years are relatively infrequent, coming notably in 2003, 2005 and 2006, but the major changes have been in the list of Authorities, which was significantly expanded in 2003 and 2006, and altered by Myriad other acts which involved the creation/deletion/merging of authorities (e.g. HMRC, SOCA). The text linked to contains none of these changes, and thus is being mis-represented.
(N.B. "Authority" ="type of agency" - RIPA mostly just specifies classes of agency, e.g. "A UK council" rather than naming specific agencies)
By way of evidence, please see the "Update Status Warning" on The Act itself, the page showing some of the Amendments to the act, and the interface through which you can find primary and secondary legislation which has modified the act:RIPA- Tables of legislative effects.
How should this matter proceed? I'm sure there are people there much better equipped to progress this than I.
(Leveret)82.22.6.4 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to the act "currently in force" - no such thing exists at present

message: Did Oliver Drage ever get out of prison? I know he was sentenced for 4 months, but there seemed to be the possibility that they would throw him back in jail again if he still refused to give out the password.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliver Drage 

message: The summary of this article doesn't really meet NPOV guidelines  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdraymon (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more - full of inaccuracies and very slanted.  Anyone got the time for a full rewrite? Tattooed Librarian 13:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality