Off The Record: How the police use surveillance powers

police-2Today we are publishing a reporthighlighting the true scale of police forces’ use of surveillance powers. The report comes at a time when the powers have faced serious criticism, following revelations that police have used them to access journalists’ phone records.
The research focuses on the use of ‘directed surveillance’ contained in the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by police forces; a form of covert surveillance conducted in places other than residential premises or private vehicles which is deemed to be non-intrusive, but is still likely to result in personal information about the individual being obtained.
Although the report details how directed surveillance powers were authorised more than 27,000 times over a three year period, police forces are not compelled to record any other statistics; therefore we cannot know the exact number of individuals that these authorisations relate to.
As part of the investigation into the use of RIPA by police, a request for details of ‘covert human intelligence’ (informers) and ‘intrusive surveillance’ (covert surveillance carried out in residential premises or private vehicles) was also submitted. However the request was rejected by forces as they believe releasing the information would negatively impact on police capability
Despite the law being changed in 2012 to stop local authorities using the same powers without a magistrate’s approval, police forces do not require any such permission. The report proposes three measures that should be introduced, including:
  • a requirement for police forces to publish data on how often and why these powers are used,
  • judicial approval of all surveillance operations
  • the right for subjects of surveillance to be informed.

The police should not be able to keep the details secret of how and why members of the public are spied on. To do so whilst not having to seek a courts approval to use the powers is simply unacceptable. Local authorities now have to justify how they will snoop on members of the public and it is about time that this authorisation procedure became the norm, not the exception.

Any member of the public that has been put under surveillance should be told that that has been the case when there is no risk to an on-going investigation. This is standard practice in a number of other countries with it being recognised as being an important oversight mechanism. It is clear that this added level of accountability will ensure that the public will only face being spied on when it is truly necessary.

Posted by on Oct 23, 2014 in Research and reports | 7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Alan
    24th October 2014

    We actually don’t know how far the state goes with surveillance. There are statutes and legislation that are intentionally vague where specifics are needed, many recommendations and guidelines. None are worth the paper they are written upon as there is always the ‘national security’ get out clause. The state has been exposed lying over and over again with those brave enough to speak out being criminalised.
    Commentators and reporters appear fixated to make us as paranoid as possible with the irony of accusations of conspiracy lunatic if we attempt to rationalise. Although it is wrong, one is left with a deep cynicism. In order to protect oneself and family civil non-cooperation and disobedience appear to be the only recourse.

    Reply
    • Anonymous
      24th October 2014

      “The state has been exposed lying over and over again with those brave enough to speak out being criminalised”

      I think persecuted is the correct word here.

      Reply
  2. Linda
    7th November 2014

    I have good reason to think that I have been subjected to Police abuse of their powers under RIPA, or one of the other excuses used to invade privacy.

    I have no criiminal convictions and do not engage in criminal activity, never have done. It appears that their interest is due to my having been a political activist, campaigner and whistleblower. As a result of these activities, I am a “Targeted Individual”, see //www.targeted-individuals.com/

    From experiences in recent years, I know that all sorts of resources have been used to snoop on me. These include intercepting E-Mails and telephone calls. I know that my mobile phone has been switched on remotely and used to listen in on me. The basis for these is very spurious, unlawful and breaches the Human Rights Act, amongst other things.

    I know of others in the same situation, so how many people in the UK are being subjected to this treatment and what is the total cost to the state?

    The Police in the UK operate like a bunch of cowboys, out of control and above the law. It requires controls and checks to protect our privacy and liberty.

    Reply
    • Angela
      19th December 2015

      Well said Linda. I’ve also been subjected to stalking, covert surveillance, directed communications and this has recently escalated to include group stalking, mobbing and street theatre. It has affected all aspects of my life and it nearly broke me a few years ago. This has been going on for about ten years. I only found out about Gangstalking and targeting this year although I’d known for a long time that something nasty was happening. If RIPA has been used to authorise this they are using legislation to psychologically torture us.

      Reply
    • Angela
      21st December 2015

      My earlier reply was removed so I’ll try again. Well said Linda. RIPA has been misused by Public Sector. Like you, I suspect I’ve been targeted for 10yrs. I’ve certainly been aware of being stalked both on foot and by car. The situations have become increasingly bizarre. My mobile phones have been hacked etc. Over the past year, this harassment’s increased, it’s terrifying.

      Reply
  3. Liz Robillard
    18th November 2014

    Snowden said UK is far worse than USA

    Reply
  4. “For your own safety and security” – Thoughts on CCTV surveillance in the UK | Notes from Self
    23rd November 2014

    […] that and concerns about the abuse of other police powers under RIPA, my lack of confidence in the powers that be is perhaps not entirely unjustified. Granted, the […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply