2012 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
3. LEGISLATIVE BASIS AN INTRODUCTION TO PART I OF
RIPA
RIPA and the way in which it defines the remit of the Commissioner, the lawful interception of
communications and the acquisition of communications data is still often misunderstood by both
the media and wider public.
It may be helpful to restate here the difference between lawful interception and the acquisition
of communications data. Although both fall under my remit to oversee, they are authorised at
different levels and used to different extents.
The power to acquire the ‘content’ of a communication, be it an email, telephone call or text
message, is provided under Part I Chapter 1 of RIPA. In order to intercept a communication
lawfully a warrant, signed by a Secretary of State, is required.
Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA provides the power to acquire communications data. This represents
the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’ of a communications event. In order to acquire communications
data, a designated person of an appropriate grade within a public authority with the requisite
powers under RIPA must approve the request.
I set out in the section that follows details of the legislative provisions within RIPA in relation
to lawful interception and the acquisition of communications data. In addition, in order to aid
understanding of the distinction between communications data and lawful interception, I have
set out the different authorisation processes and inspection regimes employed by myself and my
inspectors to check compliance in these two areas.
Figure 1 outlines the relevant sections of the statute governing the use of RIPA powers.
4