For Sale: I'm a Terrorist not a Photographer

Part 3, section 53, of RIPA makes it 2 years, the Trurururururism Act makes it 5.

Cheers for that, I was reasonably certain it was 10, must have been poor reporting (or heavy drinking on my part).

There has to be an underlying cause for the section 49 notice:

"(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or" - bingo!

'Detecting' here being the salient word.

They could do this before RIPA. RIPA actually makes it harder for them to do this, as they need to do so under the regulation of RIPA.

. . . . but pre-RIPA these powers were not rolled out to the burgeoning army of petty figures of authority (rather than bona fide police officers) - local councils being amongst a huge range of public bodies that have been given these powers, pre-RIPA there were (as far as I am aware) 0 incidents of the public being surveilled (legally) by the local council - but by 2007 nearly half a million (439,000) requests for communication traffic data were made in the 18 month period between Jan 2005 and March 2006 - RIPA massively expanded this kind of surveillance - and made much of it possible (from the perspective of who could spy on their fellow citizens) - RIPA also massively expanded the reach of what actions could justify surveillance (or at least the way it was drafted allowed for broader interpretation of what was justifiable surveillance).

So although I agree that having the regulation does what it says on the tin and regulates that actions of those using these powers, but the numbers are unambiguous, by the governments own figures 1 in 78 of the entire British public came under some form of state surveillance during this 18 month period - and all indicators are that it's use has only grown since then. This does not indicate to me that these powers have become harder to use ?

They'll be watching.

They won't recognise me in my bear costume and tin hat.