Dave,

a) Each Chief Constable is a separate data controller. Who would the data
controller be taking the INTERNET crime report though? The site does not
identify that in the portions I visited. It leaves the user to make an
assumption, which can often be a misleading thing.

b) To some extent I agree. Official purposes could be any official action
by any 'body'. There could be an argument that the position of the
statement within a UK police orientated site indicates it would be official
UK government policing purposes. I myself would not be a proponent of that
argument though.

c) No debate there.

d) Does the summary provision of information about the DPA rights not
indicate attempts at compliance with the DPA 1998 for UK residents who have
a knowledge of the rights and that legislation? Personally however I
consider mention of the DPA 1998 on the INTERNET in such statements a
necessity. Not to mention that act indicates a huge assumption that the
person using the site is aware of the UK DPA 1998 and its implications.
They may have never heard of it, and yet their information is allegedly to
be protected by it whilst being processed. Without the mention of the act
within such statements how would they ever become aware of the full legal
protections they are entitled to in the processing of their data. I suppose
some could look upon that as a benefit.

e) It seems strange that the Commissioners advice available under:-

Compliance Advice - Internet: Protection of Privacy - Data Controllers.

http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/dpr/dpdoc.nsf

States:-

"When collecting information via the Internet always inform the user of who
you are, what personal data you are collecting, processing and storing and
for what purpose. Do this before a user gives you any information, when they
visit your site and wherever they are asked to provide information, for
example via an on-line application form. It is good practice to ask for
consent for the collection of all data and it is usually essential to get
consent if you want to process sensitive personal data.

· It is good practice for a data controller who sets up a website to provide
a statement of its privacy policy. A 'privacy statement' helps individuals
to decide whether or not to visit a site and, when they do visit, whether or
not to provide any personal information to the data controller."

As you say, a privacy statement is only 'good practice'; But is a privacy
statement not also an attempt by a data controller to deliver the
information required by the first paragraph quoted above, whilst also
applying some transparency to the security the site might provide, thereby
increasing the trust of the visitor, in a condensed and easily
understandable form?

When you look at the wide international variety of privacy statements does
it not seem that many INTERNET organisations are trying to apply a code of
conduct, even without the DPA or Directive, because they see the need and
sense in that?

also within the Commissioners advice referenced above is the statement:-

"· Always let individuals know when you intend to use 'Cookies' or other
covert software to collect information about them."

and of course everybody who should, complies with that one.

This response has compiled only from information contained within the DPA
1998 and its guidance. I have not considered any other EU regulations or
directives.

Ian W



-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dave Wyatt
Sent: 12 June 2002 23:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On-Line Crime reporting


Ian:

My observations re Police web-site caveat.

Notice requirements in Sch1 Part2 Section 3 (linked to Arts 10 and 11 of the
underlying directive EC 95/46)require :

a)Identity of the data controller. - I understood each Police force in the
UK to be seperate controllers so their legal identity should exist on the
Web site somewhere.

b)Description of the purposes of use. - 'Official purposes' means nothing.
The term purposes in the Act is linked to the purposes you have to notify so
the caveat describing uses ought to declare the equivalent purpose or
purposes the controller records on their register entry. As we know not all
purposes have to be notified but where in the Act does it say you can avoid
advising data subject of the purpose exempt from notification e.g. Accounts
and Records.

Sch1 PartII Section 3c states you have to notify data subjects of 'the
purpose or purposes for which the data are intending to be processed'. You
have to examine other areas of the Act for specific caveat exemptions but
these are not consistent or clear. The 'non-disclosure' exemptions in s27
and its association to s29 shows that part of 'Policing' purpose as
described in the OIC notification descriptors is exempt from requiring a
caveat notice e.g. Prevention or detection of Crime. Other parts of this
generic purpose carry no caveat exemption e.g. render assistance to the
public in accordance with force policies and procedures. This inconsistency
makes the legislation difficult to work with. It would appear someone tried
to find the shortest possible generic descriptor the could use when
selecting the term 'Official'. Personally I would have recommended to stick
with the generic purpose of 'Policing' regardless on whether partially
exempt as it makes more sense to the reader than 'Official'.

c)Any other information to ensure processing can be shown as fair.
Here Arts 10 and 11 of the underlying direct expands on the detail of the UK
generic drafting. The term 'other' in the Act is shown as a 'such as' in Art
10. These examples are :
- recipients or catagories of recipients (those you notify on the register)
- whether data provision is voluntary or mandatory (few bother with this)
- existance of the right of access (e.g. You have a right of access under
provisions of DPA 98) and possible further information.

I suggest the 'such as' examples must be a minimum standard and futher
information beyond that a judgement call by the controller.

d) There is no requirement to declare your caveat complies with the DPA98 in
fact it can be a risk to make such a public statement as it can be argued as
a misleading statement if the caveat can be shown not to be in compliance
with the Acts requirements.

e) There is no direct requirement within the Act for 'Privacy notices' only
the information as required under the above noted schedule plus any other
relevant information if relying on Consent as a processing condition. In
fact I have been advised by both lawyers and the OIC that a 'Privacy
statement' made but not actually actioned would be argued as unfair in
breach of principle 1. (e.g. Anything you say may be used in evidence
against you).

If managing DPA compliance risks why declare anything in public statements
you do not have to. Privacy statements are best practice only and originate
from various standards bodies trying to promote transparency over and above
legislative requirements.

I believe the OIC commissioned UMIST study on web sites indicated caveats
used were found to be inconsistent across controllers in similar sectors. No
suprise there then.

David Wyatt


-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ian Welton
Sent: 11 June 2002 11:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: On-Line Crime reporting


During some research I visited the http://www.police.uk/ website and was
puzzled to note there was no privacy notice link from the site.

Tracking through the site to the on-line crime reporting section (the Minor
Crime link) the statement:-

"Submitting personal information about yourself (such as name and address)
to this website will result in those details only being used for official
purposes related to the site, we will not pass them on to any third party.
This complies with the Data Protection Act 1998, details of which can be
found at www.dpr.gov.uk <link.asp?url=www.dpr.gov.uk>"

appeared, a few more pages eventually indicated a secure server was to be
used. I did not proceed further as I had no crime to report.

Question: Would the statement above limit the use of the data provided via
this site to police forces only?


Ian W

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
      available to the world wide web community at large at
      http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
      If you wish to leave this list please send the command
       leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
            All user commands can be found at : -
    www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
  (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
      available to the world wide web community at large at
      http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
      If you wish to leave this list please send the command
       leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
            All user commands can be found at : -
    www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
  (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
      available to the world wide web community at large at
      http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
      If you wish to leave this list please send the command
       leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
            All user commands can be found at : -
    www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
  (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^