PGP: Backdoors and Key Escrow (2003)

Not really, no.

For example:

> Twenty-six local authorities used Ripa to spy on dog owners to see whose animals they believed to be responsible for dog fouling,

Before RIPA they would have done the covert surveillance and we wouldn't have known and there wouldn't have been much control over it. After RIPA they have to follow a legal framework, we know about it, and there are controls. This is exactly what ripa is for. It's supposed to regulate, not eliminate, regulatory powers. RIPA brings the surveillance that was always happening under tighter legal framework. This is not an abuse of RIPA. This is RIPA working as intended.

If you want to say there's too much surveillance you should just say that. There probably is too much surveillance in the UK.

RIPA: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

You want part two: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/27

RIPA has several sections. Only one of the cases you've linked to are under the intelligence service authorisation level. The rest are under the