50
London's police asked Big Tech for private communications data over 700,000 times last year
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
50 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6707 readers
209 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A judge issuing a warrant just for the police to try and identify a suspect isn't feasible or proportionate. Same logic would apply to requesting CCTV etc.
It would grind everything to a halt.
Where the warrant comes in is if you need to search a house and seize things.
As for the scale, I agree it does seem high. But like I said in another post, there isnt a cop in the land who has the time and inclination to put in subscriber requests just for the fun of it. The majority of those 700k requests will be on the back of a formal complaint/allegation of a crime.
A warrant is absolutely proportional for accessing private communications or searching private devices.
Privacy is a human right. It must be protected even if it's not absolute. Having a judge approve the equivalent of a wiretap is the right thing to do.
Abuse of surveillance power and disproportionate breach of privacy would certainly grind to a halt. It's worth bothering a judge to wiretap suspects of serious crime when there's probable cause, but not for minor offenses nor to harrass activists. I doubt all those 700k request are for serious crime suspects with probable cause.
I agree.
Requesting communications data from an ISP isn't any of those things though.
What do you mean? It's not (like) a wiretap? Not about serious crime? Not an abuse of police power? None of the above?
To help understand, it might be useful to know that the basic principle in the UK is that communications networks are considered to be a public utility. Anything you do on that network is considered to be a public communication. Now the detail of what you're actually doing is hidden becaise of encryption. But your identity is not. Also, this most definitely isn't the same as wire tapping. In the UK that does require a warrant
Its the same principle as if you call or text people. Your phone number,like your IP is owned by the service provider.
Finding out who the IP is registered to is no different than asking a mobile company who the number belongs to.
Same as your car number plate.
Looking up an identifier to see who it is linked to isn't an abuse of process
Thanks for the background, I'm not familiar with UK's regulation on telcos.
I stand corrected, this isn't like wiretap as the article mention Communication Data (CD) is metadata rather than content. It's still very intrusive as it show who is talking to who, when, and possibily where (location is metadata).
It make sense to make access to metadata a bit easier than metadata+content. The scale is still surprising, what kind of crime is London police investigating at a rate of 700k (or even 100k) a year ? It still beaches privacy so it should be proportional.
I agree, 700k is suspiciously high but without additional information its hard to say what is driving it. Unless each separate component of a request is considered to be a separate request. But who knows
Apparently not the public. Lack of transparency makes it hard for citizens and lawmakers to make informed policy decisions.
I agree