xzfq3

that “it is far from clear that the existing guidelines
on RIPA actually address [the] challenge of
[surveillance drones]”. 13 Looking at the law more
widely, the charity JUSTICE has argued that
RIPA “fails to provide adequate safeguards against
unnecessary and disproportionate surveillance”
and is “inadequate to cope with such developments
as aerial surveillance drones, Automatic Number
Plate Recognition, deep packet interception, and,
indeed the Internet itself.” 14 More recently, the
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee
has called for RIPA to be reformed in the wake
of numerous revelations about the activities of
undercover police officers used to infiltrate protest
movements. 15
Use by public authorities of intrusive
surveillance – that which is covert and directed at
activities in residential premises or private vehicles
– requires authorisation under RIPA. However,
according to the legislation, surveillance of
residential premises or private vehicles that:
“[I]s carried out without that device being
present on the premises or in the vehicle, is
not intrusive unless the device is such that it
consistently provides information of the same
quality and detail as might be expected to be
obtained from a device actually present on the
premises of the vehicle.” 16
Lachlan Urquhart has argued that:
“This subjective dependency on consistency,
quality and detail of drone obtained images
could introduce uncertainty into classifying
the nature of surveillance, and therefore the
application of RIPA.” 17
13. Big Brother Watch, ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and
Unmanned Aerial Systems Briefing’, undated, p.2, http://
appgondrones.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/unmanned-aerialvehicles-briefing-big-brother-watch.pdf
14. JUSTICE, ‘Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform for
a Digital Age’, October 2011, p.155, http://www.justice.org.uk/
data/files/resources/305/JUSTICE-Freedom-from-Suspicion-
Surveillance-Reform-for-a-Digital-Age.pdf
15. Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘MPs call for rootand-branch
overhaul of RIPA’, 1 March 2013, http://www.
parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commonsselect/home-affairs-committee/news/130301-undercoverpolicing-rpt/
16. Article 26(5), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/26
17. Lachlan Urquhart, ‘The Aerial Gaze: Regulating Domestic
Drones in the UK’, SCL, 17 March 2013, http://www.scl.org/
site.aspx?i=ed31354
10
Covert entry to premises or vehicles for the
placing of surveillance devices by police forces 18
and security agencies is further regulated by the
Police Act 1997 and Intelligence Services Act
1994, which requires the issuing of a warrant
by the Secretary of State to authorise such
entry. 19 However, the use of drones for intrusive
surveillance would appear to sidestep the need for
entry into premises or vehicles, thus bypassing the
extra authorisation procedure currently in place for
more traditional surveillance methods.
The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice
was published in June 2013, in order to “address
concerns over the potential for abuse of misuse
of surveillance by the state in public places.” 20
It contains twelve “guiding principles”, 21 and
18. After police forces have gathered information through
any means it is meant to be handled in accordance with the
‘Guidance on the Management of Police Information’, which was
introduced in 2006 as part of an effort to establish “intelligenceled
policing” practices. See: National Policing Improvement
Agency, ‘Guidance on the Management of Police Information’,
2010, http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/information/2010/
201004INFMOPI01.pdf
19. Article 5, Intelligence Services Act 1994
20. Home Office, ‘Surveillance Camera Code of Practice’,
June 2013, http://statewatch.org/news/2013/aug/uk-hosurveillance%20camera-code-of-practice.pdf
21. The principles are: 1. Use of a surveillance camera system
must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of
a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing
need; 2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take
into account its effect on individuals and their privacy, with
regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified; 3. There
must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance
camera system as possible, including a published contact point
for access to information and complaints; 4. There must be clear
responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera
system activities including images and information collected,
held and used; 5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in
place before a surveillance camera system is used, and these must
be communicated to all who need to comply with them; 6. No
more images and information should be stored than that which is
strictly required for the stated purpose of a surveillance camera
system, and such images and information should be deleted once
their purposes have been discharged; 7. Access to retained images
and information should be restricted and there must be clearly
defined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such
access is granted; the disclosure of images and information
should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose
or for law enforcement purposes; 8. Surveillance camera system
operators should consider any approved operational, technical
and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose
and work to meet and maintain those standards; 9. Surveillance
camera system images and information should be subject to
appropriate security measures to safeguard against unauthorised
access and use; 10. There should be effective review and audit
mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policies and standards
are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be
published; 11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is
in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is a pressing need for its
use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support