Interception meaning

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) revamped the legal regime regulating covert surveillance by public authorities. IPA 2016 superseded large parts of the framework previously, though not solely, contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000). See Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide. This note outlines the offences introduced by IPA 2016. For details of general sentencing limits in a magistrates’ court, see Practice Note: Sentences imposed following conviction—General limits on magistrates’ courts powers to impose custodial sentences following conviction... Section Offence Statutory defence Maximum sentence IPA 2016, s 3 — Unlawful interception: a person, by conduct in the UK, deliberately intercepts a communication during its transmission without lawful authority. Defence: where the individual has the right to control the operation or use of the system, or had that person’s express or implied consent to carry out the interception. Maximum sentence: on summary conviction, a fine; on indictment, up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a...

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is no longer being updated. For details of offences that can be committed under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, see: Offences under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—checklist. 27 June 2018: offences concerning unlawful interception and disclosure of communications data under RIPA 2000, ss 1 and 19, were repealed and replaced by the offences of unlawful interception and making unauthorised disclosures under IPA 2016, ss 3 and 59. 27 December 2018: RIPA 2000, s 11, was repealed. For information on the background and scope of IPA 2016, see Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide. Although offences under these provisions can no longer be committed, prosecutions may still be brought where the offence predates repeal (27 June 2016 for sections 1 and 19 offences, 27 December 2018 for section 11 offences). Where unlawful interception or disclosure occurred before those dates, it may still be prosecuted under RIPA 2000, notwithstanding that the legislation has...

In this issue: Sanctions Other financial crime Artificial intelligence & information security Other Practice Compliance updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content Sanctions DBT and FCDO publish guidance on Belarus sanctions licensing considerations and exceptions The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) have issued two fresh guidance notes under the UK’s Belarus sanctions framework, covering licensing factors and automatic exceptions. The DBT note acts as a look-up tool setting out what is weighed when granting trade sanctions licences across 12 areas, such as military interception and monitoring equipment, and machinery-related goods and technology. It explains when licences might be approved, including for humanitarian aims, safety and maintenance requirements, and medical or pharmaceutical purposes. The FCDO guidance on automatic exceptions defines where activities otherwise caught by sanctions may proceed without a licence, including matters involving personal effects and personal use, and those...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Sentencing Criminal procedure and evidence Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Money laundering International LexTalk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Home Office tables eight draft Investigatory Powers Act codes before Parliament The Home Office has presented eight revised and new draft codes of practice under the Investigatory Powers Act to Parliament. The codes span bulk personal datasets, equipment interference, communications data, intelligence services’ use of data, interception of communications, the notices regime and bulk data acquisition. These revisions to investigatory powers will take effect after the parliamentary process. Running to 49–178 pages, the codes deliver detailed guidance on investigative capabilities and the handling...

The High Court found that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia covertly installed the Pegasus spyware on Ghanem Al-Masarir’s iPhones, so as to enable tracking of his location, the interception of calls, and surveillance through the handsets’ microphones and cameras. Judge Pushpinder Saini determined that Saudi Arabia had no realistic prospect of successfully contesting Al-Masarir’s allegation that the Kingdom was behind a physical assault on him in central London. Taken together, the harassment and invasion of privacy left the activist with 'severe psychiatric injury', the judge said. Al-Masarir, a Saudi national resident in the UK since 2003, has since 2008 been a vocal critic of the Saudi royal family on YouTube. According to the judgment, his videos have attracted over 345 million views. In November 2019, Al-Masarir sued the Saudi Government for intrusive, secret surveillance in June 2018, which he said 'touched on every aspect of his private life'...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer being maintained at present. For guidance on the scrutiny of intelligence gathering, see Practice Note: Scrutiny of intelligence gathering and the role of commissioners under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) obtained Royal Assent on 29 November 2016 and reshaped the legal framework regulating the use of covert surveillance by public bodies, a framework that remains largely—though not solely—contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000). For a comprehensive background to the introduction of IPA 2016, together with a summary of its core provisions, refer to Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide. The IPA 2016, Pt 8 provisions dealing with the scrutiny of interception are in effect and apply at the present time. IPA 2016 also instituted a more powerful, independent Investigatory Powers Commission (IPC) to supervise the deployment of these powers and ensure oversight in practice...

In brief UK data protection legislation is designed to make sure information about living people (falling within the meaning of ‘personal data’) is treated fairly and responsibly. To achieve this, UK data protection law places extensive duties on anyone ‘processing’ personal data, as well as on those controlling such activities in practice. ‘Processing’ is interpreted widely, covering almost any operation on data, such as collecting, storing, deleting, disclosing, or otherwise using it. A central safeguard within UK data protection law is, in particular, the framework of obligations imposed on ‘controllers’—generally the parties determining the purposes and means of processing—and on ‘processors’, being those who handle personal data for a controller in line with the controller’s instructions. Among other requirements, UK data protection law typically obliges controllers and processors to enter into contracts containing specified minimum terms and to ensure that any processor they appoint is appropriate. In an outsourcing context, the customer commonly takes the role of controller, with the supplier acting as its processor. This Practice Note sets...

This Practice Note sets out the requirements of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), where a processor handles personal data for a controller in a commercial setting. It proceeds on the basis that readers are already familiar with core data protection concepts, terminology, and the functions of key regulators. For an initial overview of data protection law, consult the ‘key principles and concepts’ tab in the UK Data Protection toolkit, which is a recommended starting point for research. For a higher-level primer on this topic and connected matters, see: Data sharing and transactions—overview. This Practice Note also sits within the Data protection negotiation guide—controller: processor—collection, which practitioners drafting or negotiating data protection clauses between a controller and a processor may find helpful. In brief UK data protection legislation aims to ensure information about living people (within the scope of ‘personal data’) is treated fairly and responsibly. To achieve this, the UK GDPR places extensive duties on those ‘processing’ personal data (and...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with registered number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Supplier); and [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with registered number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (MVNO). Each of the Supplier and the MVNO is a party and, together, the Supplier and the MVNO are the parties. Background The Supplier operates a mobile network within the Territory. The MVNO functions as a mobile virtual network operator in the Territory. The Supplier has agreed to supply wholesale mobile electronic communications services to the MVNO for onward sale [ on a pre-pay basis OR on a post-pay basis OR on a pre-pay and post-pay basis ] in the Territory, in accordance...