Back in 2000 opposition was developing to a new piece of legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. But the controversy over the Bill, which became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), was all about provisions to bring electronic communications (e-mail) under the same regulatory regime as telephone and telex, and to demand encryption keys.

Relatively uncontroversial then were the provisions for the regulation of covert surveillance by local authorities. Now, councils are accused of abusing Ripa for trivial purposes, such as littering, or using methods that are not proportional to the alleged offences, such as covert monitoring of children to establish where parents involved in an application for school places live.

Much seems to have been inefficient too: a survey of 182 local authorities found that they have used Ripa surveillance on more than 10,000 occasions, yet only 9 per cent resulted in prosecution or enforcement action.

But it is not only local government. The Surveillance Commissioner has criticised national ministries, such as Defra, over misuse of Ripa. Officials respond that Ripa restricts and records what organisations were already doing. Most surveillance, they argue, is on the level of two men in a car watching a fly-tipping site, and that even this requires a four-page form for each request. The statistics mislead because there was none on surveillance by these organisations before Ripa.

If Ripa has enabled us to see the levels and abuse of surveillance, it has done us this favour at least. But the Surveillance Commissioner found generalised lax practice, a lack of proper justifications, and little training or accountability: Ripa is being used because the powers exist, not because there is any pressing justification.

Ripa allowed more than was intended. It was also a rag bag; even the e-mail surveillance provisions were from another Bill. And its appeals body, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is practically invisible, as the House of Lords Constitution Committee report on surveillance has argued.

The committee went a lot farther than the Government, saying that surveillance powers should be reserved for serious criminal offences and that there should be judicial oversight for all surveillance by public authorities.

Instead, here, the Government suggests moving sign-off powers higher up within the organisations. The Lords also suggested that there should have been proper provision for public accountability in Ripa. Instead, this review is taking place largely because of government embarrassment over revelations.

The consultation document also reminds us that there is still no meaningful regulation of closed-circuit television cameras: they are outside Ripa and, it seems, out of control.

Ripa is merely one aspect of a very British tendency to manage things through surveillance before other means. This has to be controlled, and in a more thoughtful way than reviews in response to media concern.

Dr Murakami Wood is an Economic and Social Resarch Council Fellow at Newcastle University

Times Recommends

• Phoebe Caldwell wins Times/Sternberg Award
• Raging against fake pop has its own pitfalls
• How a voice for everyone led to stalemate