UK Court of Appeal rebukes Home Office for exceeding its powers with bunkum 'national security' GSM gateway ban The Home Office cannot order Ofcom to ignore its legal duties even when a government minister wants to shut something down because of unspecified "national security" concerns, the Court of Appeal has said, ruling that ministers acted outside their legal powers when banning GSM gateways. The judgment ends a drawn-out saga that …
In January 2021 the Home Office reportedly made an application to the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal. January 2022 we're now told that the Home Office has been granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. Perhaps an indication of an ever desperate UK Government to avoid further scrutiny by Parliament, preventing "mere mortals" from knowing the machinations of former ministers, secretaries of state and senior civil servants. More delays.
It was about protecting Revenue of Ofcom's Mobile friends and thus Treasury income. But you knew that.
Ofcom and Comreg pay lip service to Spectrum management, Consumers etc. See Ofcom submissions on Roaming charges. They get most of their income from Mobile and make massive income for Treasury. Captured regulators.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's always the terrorism excuse. Want to ban something? It aids terrorists. Want to push a new invasion of privacy? It helps in the fight against terrorism.
They'll add public health to the roster after this year. Want to ban something? It's a health crisis. Stay in your homes.
Any excuse to pry and peek, and control every formerly private moment.
It's all so tedious.
Once again the Home Office, after the Court of Appeal judgment is handed down, says that the operation of commercial multi-user gateways threatens our national security. Ofcom's own CLI guidelines do NOT require CLI to be a legal prerequisite.
David Anderson QC in his 2016 report, Investigatory Powers for the Government, presented to the Government makes no mention of GSM Gateways as a security threat.
Why was Philip Rutnam involved?
I used to use COMUGs* back in the early 2000s for talking to to colleagues overseas and the not-yet-Mrs IP in the early days of our courtship. They saved me a fortune on the hugely inflated standard prices. I didn't know why they suddenly disappeared until this litigation started. Can't blame the Tory party for this one, though - it was on New Labour's** watch.
** Tories with a red rosette.
* I had more than one in my address book because they weren't always reliable.
While we're part of the ECHR, it wouldn't fly for the criminal offence - but if it's such a big deal, presumably bringing in legislation would be a cheaper and more certain way of dealing with it in future.
Retrospective legislation on taxation is actually quite common, particularly to close perceived loopholes.
Yeah, but it's not really. The Tories in the shires want you to keep your hands off their wealth (housing and pensions). The Tories in the 'red wall' want some of that wealth to go to their brexit buddies in the towns -- 'see, if you vote Tory you get free handouts.'
Alas the free handouts have gone. The bribes of the 80s (cheap council houses) have been sold, and everyone's got their profit. The only way you can give new money to the new Tory voters is to take it from the old ones.
Any money they could 'borrow' to give as gifts has been taken up by Covid. Opps!
Someone's going to be pissed off.
"We note the Court of Appeal’s conclusion and are considering it.
"We have been clear that the operation of commercial multi-user gateways can have the impact of masking the identities of suspected terrorists and criminals which threatens our national security."
Translation: "We know that we lost the court case and it's been proved that legally we were in the wrong...but we're still right."
This post has been deleted by its author
Cynical Government actions perhaps. It's been alleged that in addition to many multi-national commercial organisations using GSM Gateways, various Government departments including the Scottish Office, the Deputy Prime Minister's office, several NHS Trusts, Fire Departments, Police Forces and other similar bodies were accessing these services to reduce costs in order to maximise the tax-payer funded budgets.
If the "National Security" threat has been shown to be bunkum, then why are the Home Office and Ofcom seeking to curtail free-market competitive services? No similar ban exists in Europe. Is there another commercial reason for such draconian measures utilised, but being hidden behind the red herring of "National Security"? Maybe Sir Philip Rutnam knows the answer.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
