[pcdevils]

The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice.

Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that:

The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.

[beambot]

So you're saying it's still at the discretion of a single magistrate?

I'm sure China could find some judges to rule in the name of national security if it would give everyone warm fuzzies.

Judicial checks and balances only function when they're independent of the executive and parliament

[AlecSchueler]

> So you're saying it's still at the discretion of a single magistrate?

A judge isn't a magistrate, but also: No, of course not. There are different layers of legal protections in the UK. You would be able to appeal the notice itself, you would be able to argue at the court against the decision, and you could make an appeal to a higher court if your were convicted. Furthermore you could make an official complaint about the investigation afterwards.

[danlitt]

Not addressing your main point, magistrates and judges are not the same thing. It would be much worse if it were at the discretion of a magistrate.

[halJordan]

An interesting observation of the West is that people have an innate trust in the authorities/institutions. It's largely because the institutions have been well run for so long. But as that fades we're left in this twilight zone where you can point to a law like it prevents something. As is often pointed out, the Soviet constitution was much more free than the US one. Even the Romans knew this distinction

[AlecSchueler]

> people have an innate trust in the authorities/institutions. It's largely because the institutions have been well run for so long.

There isn't trust of the institutions in the UK. That's why there's so many layers of checks and balances like various courts of appeal and the two houses in the parliament. It's designed with the idea that a rogue player can't go wild.

It's also not true that British institutions have been well run for a long time. Bloody Sunday would be a very visceral and obvious example. Interesting case as well because obviously it took almost half a century but at least there was official recognition and apology from the prime minister after the courts and parliamentary investigative bodies did their thing.

[JasperBit]

The standard of proof is reasonable grounds, don't forget your passwords because this is an incredibly low bar to pass.

>in preventing or detecting crime

If the police are requesting a s.49 notice it goes without saying that it will be for preventing or detecting crime, but notices can also be issued to ensure the exercise or performance of public bodies, statutory powers, or statutory duties without such a requirement.

>Disclosure is proportionate.

In regards to what is sought to be achieved by the disclosure. It is not disproportionate to request disclosure for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime regardless of how benign that crime is.

>If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.

The law has been used against people for failing to give up Facebook passwords. The police routinely ask companies for information without a warrant and they're usually legally denied such requests based on GDPR grounds. 'Reasonably practicable' means nothing if it can be bypassed by police trying their luck without a warrant.