Slashdot Mirror

Wrong. Go read the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm# 49

I thought the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 to make pseudo images of child porn illegal anyway. Sounds like this would be extending that to "abuse".

There was a case earlier this year of someone being arrested under that act. See here

If such a law came into effect, what would constitute possession?

Would a computer owner who had previously stored such images on their computer be required to delete them? Or securely delete them (multiple overwrites)? Or scrub their entire hard-drive with Darius Boot and Nuke? Thermite? etc.

I'm always interested to hear the UK goverment tell its citizens that possession of data on computers will be made 'illegal' from a fixed date onwards. The same woolly legal thinking applied to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which criminalizes the possession of data that the owner encrypted but is unable to decrypt when demanded to do so by the police.

Comment from inside the programme is restricted by a number of things, but two significant ones are essentially that the contractors' contracts prevent them making public statements not authorised by the customer (the Department of Health), as I remember it, and the Official Secrets Act.

There are a number of things preventing the UK government introducing change in the NHS:

• The GPs don't work for the NHS, they're self-employed contractors whose contracts take nearly a decade to change
• The hospitals aren't directly under the control of the NHS, they are controlled by the acute trusts
• The consultants are not under the control of the NHS. They have contracts (I forget who with, probably the acute trusts
• 80% of the NHS budget is controlled by the Primary Care Trusts

... so the NHS is not in a position to say "do this" and have it done. It's just not a command-and-control organisation. There are a number of types of change that the NHS has been trying to make for over ten years. The Connecting for Health programme (formerly the NHS National Programme for IT) could be described as an attempt to achieve organisational change by the introduction of IT changes. Manifestly, effecting organisational change by introducing technical change is, to put it mildly, difficult and expensive. So for those in charge of any part of the programme there is a perception of a high risk of failure. Justifiably so, in many people's opinion.

So, there are a number of options on proceeding in an environment as risky as this. You could take an approach where you pilot an idea to see if it is workable before proceeding to full-scale rollout. This happened for example with electronic prescriptions. That pilot was cancelled at around the same time that the NPfIT programme was launched. Another way of tackling the risk would be to find a small number of large suppliers and let a number of contracts to them, with mind-bogglingly punitive financial penalties for lateness, unavilability, nondelivery and so on. This is the approach that the UK department of health took. So vast is the scale of the potential penalties that many potential suppliers were disqualified simply because they did not have the financial stature to sign up to those. Other bidders had the stature but not the stomach for that (I suspect Lockheed Martin was in this category).

So, what does a contractor do when faced with vast potential penalties?

• Adopt low-risk solutions rather than high-risk but cheap solutions (and I'm talking about perception of risk here, as in, "Is it tried-and-tested"?)
• Apply huge amounts of contingency to their estimates/pricing
• Require that the level of potential profit justifies the huge levels of risk being undertaken
• Move all inessential or avoidable deliverables out of scope, and if possible, de-scope the riskiest parts of the job

Those factors mean that the NHS passing on the risk of the programme to the subcontractors would always mean that the contracts would be mind-bogglingly expensive. Moving things out of scope means that even though the contracts are expensive, there are many activities that aren't covered. That means that the NHS has to spend still more money on those activities. The media then acts surprised that having let billions of pounds of contracts, the NHS spends still more. Look at it this way: if an organisation spends X pounds on new IT syetems, how much money will they need to spend on related costs (rollout, training, organisational change, costs associated with upheaval, parallel running, data migration, data cleansing)? I'd say that 2X pounds of additional costs would be an underestimate. Bear in mind here that the NHS has about 800,000 employees (direct and indirectly employed healthcare workers).

The scope of the

In the UK it is illegal to not divulge encryption keys/passphrases upon demand. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), aka the Grim RIPA. It has a particularly nice "tipping off offence" provision whereby telling anyone you have been forced to give up your key results in an automatic 5 years prison.

I hate to drag up 1984 yet again, but RIPA's title is a good example of doublespeak given that all it does is expand police powers and create questionable new offences.

where are those exceptions stated? I can't find any such exceptions mentioned in either the Computer Misuse Act or the police and Justice Act (which is updating sections of the CMA).

Read sections 57 and 58 of the relevant law, especially 58b. If you have a document containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, like a map, say, then you are committing an offence. Yes, the law provides several defences, but (in general) where the law provides a defence you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. And how can you prove you were merely curious? This is a very bad law.

Forbidden in the context of terrorism, yes. If I was writing a book about Al Qaeda I could legally possess the Al Qaeda Manual; if I was planning an act of terrorism it wouldn't.

The relevant section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--g.htm# 57

It's not a great law as it basically makes being a bit terroristy a crime rather than something concrete such as possession of a weapon - possess a weapon such as plastic explosive and you've committed an offence (assuming you're not special forces or in mining); planning to do a terrorist spectacular would make the offence worse, but even if the law couldn't prove terrorist intent they'd still have you. Here the law has to prove (should this ever come to court) terrorist intent, otherwise there's no offence.

But it's better than banning the books outright.

Rights of Investigatory Powers Act

In the UK, the age of consent it 16 (for heterosexuals, 18 for homosexuals).

Umm, no.
The age of consent is 16 for everyone, the UK doesn't discriminate anymore.

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000044.htm

Linking medical, email, phone, bank & credit card records will be as simple as putting your new National Identity Registration number on those existing databases and allowing the Govt to query them.

Furthermore, you will be denied a new passport unless you give up this information, according to the ID Cards Act.

This comes two months after Gordon Brown was reported to be "planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases."
He described how "police could be alerted as soon as a wanted person used a biometric-enabled cash card or even entered a building via an iris-scan door."

More details of how the National Identity Register will be the hub of Britain's Surveillance State.

NO2ID is an increasingly successful campaign, which has helped mastermind the recent publicity. We are highly respected in both Parliament and the media. Join the monthly mailing list so that you can keep one step ahead of the Govt's attempts to snoop on you.

Unfortunately, this threat is very real. Stealth data collection through passport interviews is planned to start within 6 months - although there is still time to renew. Please forward this information on to anyone you think might like to keep Britain a free country.

Lawful business... hmm, ever smoked a joint? Driven a bit fast? Bought alcohol when you were under 18? Attended a peaceful demonstration within 1 kilometer of Parliament?

In the UK, they are illegal unless you have previously given permission to the spammer to make these calls. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992093.htm#22

In principle, the law is simple: you can only use personal information about people if they are a) dead or b) give you permission to do so. You then have a duty of care to make sure the data is not stolen, etc; and you have to say to the Data Protection Registrar that you are holding personal data.

Actually the law is not that simple really, because of the definition of "personal data", and a whole load of exceptions. Plus theres some other stuff about direct marketing and stuff.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_protection_act
Full text:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980029.htm

Sorry, I misquoted. It's "installed or used" in the legislation. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--l.htm# 363

It doesn't specify humans. Some of us consider killing all animals to be murder. But where to I draw my line ? Bacteria, a wild dog attacking me, a mosquito ?

Specificity for such things is always hard to pin down.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_1994003 3_en_6.htm#mdiv63

Here the state tries to define rave music in order to outlaw it

63.--(1) This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose--

              (a) such a gathering continues during intermissions in the music and, where the gathering extends over several days, throughout the period during which amplified music is played at night (with or without intermissions); and

              (b) "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.

We have a chat over a cup of tea, and if that fails, then we resort to the Party Wall Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1996/1996040.htm

You know, there are folks out there who would call what these hackers are doing an act of terrorism.

In the UK, interfering with any electronic system for political purposes is defined as terrorism. The same definition of terrorism is used in a more recent law that criminalises speech that glorifies terrorism.

Of course, that says more about the abuse of the word "terrorism" than it does about the morality of withholding exploits.

You know, there are folks out there who would call what these hackers are doing an act of terrorism.

In the UK, interfering with any electronic system for political purposes is defined as terrorism. The same definition of terrorism is used in a more recent law that criminalises speech that glorifies terrorism.

Of course, that says more about the abuse of the word "terrorism" than it does about the morality of withholding exploits.

As it happens, providing misleading data is exactly what Al Queda recommends, so maybe we all need to start behaving like terrorists now?

You'll have to find your own link to Al Queda's guide, because I don't want to risk police action here in the UK, where "a person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism" - Terrorism Act 2000. But here's an extract.

I would say it is legal in the UK because of a rather obscure law from the 80s (yay, another thing to thank our beloved Maggie for!) but if you read http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_3.htm#mdiv22 and consider the phrase "otherwise for his private and domestic use" then I'm not sure if you could think of a way of looking at it which wouldn't make it legal...

Although as a side point about it's legality in Russia, which will ultimately have the biggest impact on how it operates, I think it might become illegal on sept. 1st, which would be bad... best spend the balance now and wait it out... it might be ok ;)

>In the UK, copyright law is stricter than in the US.
>There's no "fair use". You do, actually, need a license
>to perform any act that requires copying takes place.

This is not completely true. Although no general "fair use" exists, there is special provisions for computer programs that allows you to make nessecary copies. There is a clause about regulating agreement but it doesn't require such a thing. In the absence of an agreement restricting copying, any copying needed to use the software is allowed by a lawfull user of the software. There is no requirement of having an agreement to be a lawfull user. So unless you do agree to a contract (for example an EULA) that restrict copying to use (which seems stupid), you are allowed by copyright law to make such copying anyway.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923233_en_ 2.htm

Incidentally, does anyone know the deal with returning box sets of DVDs if, several months after buying them, you discover that disc 6 of 7 doesn't play? It seems unreasonable to expect a customer to watch the entire box set within a few days of buying them, but there's also potential for abuse if a retailer must accept the set back several months later when any damage may or may not have had anything to do with the condition of the DVDs when they were sold.

Under the Sale of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, if you find a defect within 6 months it is assumed to have been present when supplied, unless the supplier can provide evidence that it wasn't. The supplier must replace the discs if you return them within those 6 months. The regulations -- you're looking for section 48A

Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work".

Correct, but note that the Right not to be unfairly dismissed has a qualifying period, during which any dismissal is considered fair,

Employment Rights Act 1996 (two years) reduced to one year by Statutory Instrument 1999/1436 sections 2-4.

Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work".

Correct, but note that the Right not to be unfairly dismissed has a qualifying period, during which any dismissal is considered fair,

Employment Rights Act 1996 (two years) reduced to one year by Statutory Instrument 1999/1436 sections 2-4.

Your post would have been so much more useful if you'd cited your references.

The Race Relations Act 1976 is not yet on OPSI.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (III,19) says (amongst other things):

19.(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person (a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;

The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 is not yet on OPSI.

For those thinking (correctly) that no party can be forced to enter into a contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness to enter into a contract.

I think I had read this bit of the 1988 copyright act. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_3.htm But on rereading it isn't as clear as I thought, incidental running can not be adaptation of the work but I'm not sure about whether a copy has been made. I do however suggest an alternative below based on the same page of the act but with regards to the definition of infringement by copying.

                21.--(1) The making of an adaptation of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.

For this purpose an adaptation is made when it is recorded, in writing or otherwise.
        (2) The doing of any of the acts specified in sections 17 to 20, or subsection (1) above, in relation to an adaptation of the work is also an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.

For this purpose it is immaterial whether the adaptation has been recorded, in writing or otherwise, at the time the act is done.

        (3) In this Part "adaptation"--

              (a) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, means--
                          (i) a translation of the work;
                          (ii) a version of a dramatic work in which it is converted into a non-dramatic work or, as the case may be, of a non-dramatic work in which it is converted into a dramatic work;
                          (iii) a version of the work in which the story or action is conveyed wholly or mainly by means of pictures in a form suitable for reproduction in a book, or in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical;

              (b) in relation to a musical work, means an arrangement or transcription of the work.

        (4) In relation to a computer program a "translation" includes a version of the program in which it is converted into or out of a computer language or code or into a different computer language or code, otherwise than incidentally in the course of running the program.

        (5) No inference shall be drawn from this section as to what does or does not amount to copying a work.

-------------
Note in the following definition of "Infringement of copyright by copying." that (2) says "reproducing in material form." - I would think it could be argued that a temporary in memory copy was not in "material form."

Infringement of copyright by copying.

                17.--(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

        (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

        (3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.

        (4) Copying in relation to a film, television broadcast or cable programme includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film, broadcast or cable programme.

        (5) Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.

        (6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.

If you want to make up 'wouldn't it be cool if we...' stories, do so, just don't try to pass them off as fact.

Now piss off before you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.

The school rules will say they're not allowed mobile phones.

That doesn't matter. Them breaking the school rules does not give you the right to break the law.

Nobody's rights have been broken, no felony committed

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 says:

3.--(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

Slashdot thinks you should post such suggestions anonymously. ;o) Interfering with the Great Firewall in order to influence the Chinese government would fall under the UK's definition of terrorism. (Subsections 1(a-c), 2(e) and 4(d).)

Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

(This comment does not constitute legal advice. If you require legal advice, consult a lawyer; if you are getting your legal advice from Slashdot comments, you want your head examined.) ...no it doesn't. In fact, that piece of legislation wasn't designed for this (but instead mostly resellers of counterfeit goods), and is not very encouraging for the BPI. "...otherwise than for his private and domestic use..." is the critical part here; so a UK entity reselling grey imports would be in dodgy territory; but a UK citizen doing their own imports for personal use (bringing the CDs and DVDs you bought abroad back to your home in the UK, for example*) would be pretty well in the clear.

AllOfMP3 is obviously targeted at private and domestic use, as are all the current music download sites (because you need performing rights for any public exhibition of a phonorecording or motion picture, and last time I checked, the performing rights societies were claiming downloads didn't qualify, you needed original physical CDs; that may have changed). Section 22 therefore does not apply to music and movies you bought abroad and imported here (such as ones you bought on a site in Russia that's legal in Russia, and imported here to your hard disk via the internet), unless you plan on exhibiting or reselling them - and even if you were, that's your problem, not the problem of the person in the other country who sold it to you!

The BPI would lose this one, were it contested. The BPI probably don't care, if it allows them to issue, in the interim, press releases asserting that it's illegal for British residents to download music from AllOfMP3; even if that isn't actually true, if that is all that is being said, that is what is reported and in common belief.

will AllOfMP3 contest it? I seriously doubt it. They're in Russia. They're legal there (to the resigned annoyance of some officials); files have been closed, and will not even be investigated. Why in hell would they care about the UK? Their position has always been that since it's legal in Russia, that is the end of the matter as far as they are concerned.

The BPI can't possibly get an injunction with any force, and they wouldn't dare sue individuals for downloading music from AllOfMP3 - not that they'd have any way of tracing them - because as I've mentioned, they'd lose. So it's all about the press releases - as usual. Film at 11.

* Other than illegal porn, of course, but that's a given. And bear in mind that UK C&E have seized, and sometimes still do seize, things the UK & EU legislation doesn't actually allow them to seize.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 yet. IANAL, but I saw one on TV explaining how this act related to dialler fraud - essentially, if you have money that's come from criminal activity, you can't do anything with it. The claim there was that under this act, people can't be billed for calls made by this fraud.

If we apply the same logic to allofmp3, it seems that once the site is ruled illegal, then processing card payments for the site will also be by default illegal. So, they don't need to shut it down - the site won't do you much good if you can't pay them.

A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.

What is the "it" that you are referring to? I don't think anybody thinks it's legal for somebody to set up an AllOfMP3 in the UK that pays license fees in accordance with Russian law.

And, while the BPI have claimed otherwise to the press (and had their claims blindly repeated), it is not illegal for people in the UK to download from AllOfMP3.

So what, exactly, are they trying to prove is illegal? One thing nobody thinks is legal anyway, and one thing is actually legal.

The UK has the answer.

Are you talking about the same United States that guarantees free speech in the constitution (which is NOT typically guranteed in Europe)

And to clarify my own post further, realising 'non-statutory role' was a bad term to use: classification of films in general (unlike games, and with a few exceptions) falls under the Video Recordings Act, but only some of what the Board takes into account is explicitly laid down legally.

Yes, that would be a good idea, wouldn't it.

Sorry, I made an error; Time shifting is now legal and part of the UK law, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#19 as is making transient copies for the purpose of listening to it on say, the computer. Making entire copies of CDs for personal use, or ripping to MP3 is still technically illegal though.

If you check Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) and The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 you'll see that there isn't any 'fair use' right for CD/tape/vinyl music in the UK. The closest is that for making recordings of 'broadcasts' (includes cable tv). A phrase similar to 'fair use' is 'fair dealing', which is applicable in general to academic works (and has some new restrictions due to that EU directive).

So, yes, this is/was news, the BPI is basically saying they're waiving their right to sue anyone for what is, legally speaking, an infringement.

And indeed that EU directive has given us a clause prohibiting reverse engineering "the functioning of a computer program".

If you check Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) and The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 you'll see that there isn't any 'fair use' right for CD/tape/vinyl music in the UK. The closest is that for making recordings of 'broadcasts' (includes cable tv). A phrase similar to 'fair use' is 'fair dealing', which is applicable in general to academic works (and has some new restrictions due to that EU directive).

So, yes, this is/was news, the BPI is basically saying they're waiving their right to sue anyone for what is, legally speaking, an infringement.

And indeed that EU directive has given us a clause prohibiting reverse engineering "the functioning of a computer program".

My understanding is that under Russian law (as cock-eyed as many Westerners may see it), any rights owner who wishes to distribute a work in Russia is implicitly assumed to have licensed ROMS and FAIR to handle collection of royalties for that work within Russia. In turn, allofmp3 pay the appropriate license fee to those organizations, and this is why the previous investigation went nowhere - they were not in violation of any then-current Russian laws.

If allofmp3 is offering tracks from BPI artists that aren't being sold in Russia, then what you say would appear to be true. Otherwise, I'm not so sure, and regardless, it would be for the Russian courts to resolve.

Anyone in the UK who downloads from allofmp3 is therefore doing so unlawfully, and allofmp3 is acting unlawfully in facilitating that.

That said, provided a downloader does not realise copyright is being infringed, he will be liable under civil law for damages, but will not commit a criminal offence.

I was going to raise the issue of importation as described in the UK Copyright, Designs & Patents act, but I get the impression from your second sentence that that's what you're alluding to. Is a download from allofmp3 a copy, or an import (or both, or neither)?

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that allofmp3 is committing a criminal offence in the UK.

None of allofmp3's resources operate from the UK, so I'm not sure what UK law they can be claimed to be breaking? If anything, it would surely be their UK-resident customers who are breaking UK law?

This is already enacted, it just needs a ministerial order to bring it into effect. The debate was over five years ago. It came to prominance again in November last year, when the UK was debating how long it was reasonable to keep people in jail without trial, with a key point of the Government's argument being that they needed three months to decrypt data - the opposition pointed out that with holding encryption keys was already an offence in its self so that argument was nonsense.

This law scares me, because it, like many of the 700-1000 new criminal offences created by Blair's Government since 1997 it has the potential to criminalise people who've not activly done anything wrong. Read Section 3 of the RIP act the State only has to have reasonable grounds for believing someone has an encryption key to force you to reveal it (then throwing you in jail if they won't / can't / or havn't a clue what an encryption key is, when they might have used one or how to supply it to big brother.)

The law also states that it may, depending on the circumstances, be an offence to tell anyone that you've been asked to disclose your encryption keys - there is no exemption for instructing a lawyer to defend the demand for the key.

This law is not only bad for Business as indicated in the article, but yet another frightening step knocking the relationship between the state and its people out of balance

From the text of the Act:

"For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if
(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

So in other words... maybe.

The law - which is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm

It requires you to provide a key - if it is reasonable to assume you have it - to decrypt encrypted data. It is only illegal to refuse to give a key IF ASKED, and NOT "look up their name in the government encryption key database, find out that no, they did not provide their encryption key to , and take them directly to jail."

It IS an offense (from the legal text liked above) "if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice."

I can't find actual text for the law, but everything I've read suggests that an order (warrant) will be required:

Part 3 of RIPA gives the police powers to order the disclosure of encryption keys, or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data.

The actual language is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm

but is fairly dense, and without greater familiarity with UK law it is hard for me to tell.

49. - (1) This section applies where any protected information-
            (a) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;

This law is so big brother, it makes me wanna vomit. Thank g-d we don't have this in the USA. Oh wait, we do. Its called the Patriot Act. Any judge can order you to turn over your crypto keys. But at least its not as broad as just requiring a "notice from an authority".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm# 49

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
2000 Chapter 23

PART III
INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROTECTED BY ENCRYPTION ETC.

Power to require disclosure
Notices requiring disclosure.

49. - (1) This section applies where any protected information-

(a) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;
(b) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any statutory power to intercept communications, or is likely to do so;
(c) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any power conferred by an authorisation under section 22(3) or under Part II, or as a result of the giving of a notice under section 22(4), or is likely to do so;
(d) has come into the possession of any person as a result of having been provided or disclosed in pursuance of any statutory duty (whether or not one arising as a result of a request for information), or is likely to do so; or
(e) has, by any other lawful means not involving the exercise of statutory powers, come into the possession of any of the intelligence services, the police or the customs and excise, or is likely so to come into the possession of any of those services, the police or the customs and excise.
(2) If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds-

(a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
(b) that the imposition of a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information is-
(i) necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3), or
(ii) necessary for the purpose of securing the effective exercise or proper performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty,
(c) that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
(d) that it is not reasonably practicable for the person with the appropriate permission to obtain possession of the protected information in an intelligible form without the giving of a notice under this section,
the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information.

(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary-

(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
(4) A notice under this section imposing a disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information-

(a) must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;
(b) must describe the protected information to which the notice relates;
(c) must specify the matters falling within subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) by reference to which the notice is given;
(d) must specify the office,

To be honest, I live in the UK and I didn't know about this law. Am I being really ignorant, or has it not been publicised much?

But the warrants are issued by the secretary of state, not the judiciary. Take a look at the relevant legislation. If the government believed that wholesale surveillance was necessary to combat terrorism they could issue a warrant. For all I know they already have.