Frequently asked questions

Covert investigatory techniques are important ways of investigating someone without alerting them to the fact that they are under investigation.

For many years, public authorities (including the law enforcement and intelligence agencies, various regulatory bodies and local authorities) have been able to use a wide range of covert techniques, including:

• communications data, such as the location of a mobile phone
• the interception of communications
• covert surveillance, which covers both directed surveillance and intrusive surveillance
• covert human intelligence sources
• accessing encrypted electronic information

For more information on these investigatory techniques and who can use them, see RIPA powers explained.

Using covert techniques allows a range of public authorities to investigate suspected offences without alerting the person under investigation.  

They can be a vital way of gathering information for a range of important purposes, for example to protect public health (if someone is dumping hazardous waste illegally), to prevent fraud (if someone is falsely claiming disability benefits) or to assess or collect taxes or other statutory charges.

Covert techniques can also be essential in investigating, preventing and prosecuting some of the most serious crimes, including armed robbery, child sex abuse and murder, and in detecting and preventing planned terrorist attacks.

Read case studies on some of the real-life uses of covert techniques by police, councils and central government departments.

Until 2000, when the Human Rights Act came into force and the government passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), public authorities could use most of these techniques free from statutory control.  The use of interception was previously governed by the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the use of property interference by a limited number of public authorities was governed by the Police Act 1997 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

There was no statutory requirement on public authorities to consider whether it would be necessary and proportionate to use any of the various techniques.

Authorities did not always have to justify the likely intrusion into the privacy of those under investigation, or even into the privacy of others who could be affected.

The authorities were not required to authorise all the covert techniques at appropriately senior levels.

The authorities were not, in many cases, subject to independent oversight as a safeguard.

There was no independent complaints mechanism.

In short, before RIPA, the use of covert investigatory techniques by public authorities was largely unregulated.

RIPA addressed this situation, creating a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the use of covert techniques by public authorities.

Under RIPA, the most deeply intrusive techniques, such as intercepting communications or eavesdropping in private places, can only be used by a very limited set of public authorities (see sections 6, 32 and 41 RIPA) .

Now, regardless of which technique is involved, a public authority must first demonstrate that its use of these methods would be both necessary and proportionate before taking action.

The authority must consider the impact on the privacy of those under investigation, and on any one else who might be affected.

Different techniques can only be used if they are authorised at appropriately senior levels; and the most deeply intrusive techniques are subject to prior independent approval.

RIPA put further safeguards in place that did not exist before in relation to all these techniques. Public authorities using techniques under RIPA are now subject to independent inspection. There is also an independent tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, to consider any complaints relating to the way techniques regulated by RIPA have been used.

Under RIPA, local authorities are able to use a far more restricted range of investigatory techniques than intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

They are limited to using the least intrusive types of communications data, directed surveillance (which means covert surveillance in public places) and covert human intelligence sources (such as informants). 

They can use these techniques only for detecting or preventing crime and disorder where it is necessary and proportionate for them to do so. For example, trading standards departments are responsible for investigating and prosecuting rogue traders and other scams.

Local authorities cannot carry out intrusive surveillance, or seek warrants for interception. 

What is the difference between interception and communications data?

Interception, for example listening to someone’s telephone conversations or reading an email or letter, can only be conducted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies with a Secretary of State warrant.

Access to communications data, such as subscriber details or billing information, is available to a wider range of public authorities.

No. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislates for and regulates the use of a range of covert techniques for many different purposes. See case studies.

The more intrusive of these powers, such as interception of communications - which allows authorities to see the content of emails or letters or hear telephone conversations - are limited to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. These techniques may be used to investigate serious crime, including terrorism.

Other less intrusive powers such as directed surveillance or access to communications data can be used by a greater number of public authorities, for a wider range of purposes, including preventing and detecting crime in general.

It did not create any new covert powers or techniques – the techniques already existed. Rather, it created for the first time a framework to regulate the way public authorities use them.

Yes, provided it is kept up to date.

RIPA and its associated codes of practice have greatly improved control and oversight of the way public authorities use key investigatory techniques, in order to protect our privacy.

The government recognises, however, that we must keep the way public authorities use these techniques under review.

In particular, some public authorities have used techniques under RIPA on a number of occasions in ways most people would consider inappropriate.

We are committed to make sure this is not repeated, and that is why we consulted widely on plans to update the RIPA framework .

The key techniques addressed in the consultation were:

• covert surveillance (monitoring someone without them knowing)
• the use of covert human intelligence sources (people who establish and/ or use a relationship to obtain information covertly)

We are clear that the techniques authorised under RIPA should not be used for purposes such as investigating dog fouling offences, or to find out whether people are putting out their refuse bins too early. Most people would agree it would not be proportionate to use covert investigatory techniques to pursue these investigations.

In order to make sure local authorities only use techniques under RIPA when appropriate, we are raising the rank at which RIPA authorisations can be granted to senior executives.

We are creating a role for elected councillors to oversee the way in which their local authorities use RIPA techniques.

We are also replacing the existing codes of practice on covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources, in order to provide greater clarity on when the use of RIPA techniques is likely to be proportionate.

For more information, please see our consultation and responses.