Big Brother Watch has a new report out today, on councils using covert surveillance to spy on people. You can read the report here.
The key point I'd make is that all of the things being investigated by Councils (if true) are wrong, but none of them justify covert surveillance. Be it fly tipping, dog fouling, flouting the smoking ban or snooping on the council's own employees, when the man from the council is given spying powers, the cure has become worse than the disease.
As you read it, remember that
1) NONE of these uses are for serious crimes or terrorism - those are of course investigated by the police or security services (indeed, many people are very surprised to find out that councils have covert surveillance powers at all)
2) ALL of the 8,000+ uses of surveillance in the past 2 years are based on Councils Freedom of Information responses - they're all their words and explanations, not ours!
3) Getting rid of these powers from Councils would NOT mean that people just "get away with" whatever is alleged. Bradford Council stopped using RIPA in 2007, writing to people to warn them they were going to be monitored for e.g. noise nuisance ("overt surveillance", I suppose) - and compliance went UP, not down.
4) NOBODY who was watched and found "innocent" was told that they were under surveillance. It's not scaremongering, but simply accurate, to point out the obvious - that it could have happened to you.
Given the remarkable abuses of RIPA outlined in our report that I believe that the Coalition's very welcome pledge to cut back on council surveillance powers by requiring them to obtain warrants from Magistrates before snooping (which, astonishingly, is not currently required) does not go far enough. Councils have failed to demonstrate the responsibility needed to use such serious capabilities and they should be stripped of them altogether. If an alleged offence is serious enough to warrant covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.