[log in to unmask] on 12 August 2004 at 14:09 said:-
> Maybe it would have helped if I had quoted directly from the ICO report:
>
> "As a result of a Police National Computer check a man found
> out that his
> record contained details of crimes which he had not
> committed. His innocence was
> confirmed through finger print evidence. It was established
> that the person
> who had in fact committed the offences was an illegal
> immigrant who had stolen
> Mr X's identity. The Police thought it impossible to remove
> the record as they
> had no other way of recording information about the offences.
> However they
> agreed to put comments on the record about Mr X's physical
> characteristics
> proving that he was not the offender."
A problem with identity theft and the recording of alias names on PNC then.
I imagine it was a case pending or could even be a conviction.
All of the DPA principles would certainly be being met, and the comments on
the record would meet s.13(3) requirements protecting the police from any
need to compensate the data subject. The data subject would certainly have
recourse to s.14(4), but by then I imagine sufficient damage could have
happened to assure ongoing expenditure and difficulties for the rest of
their lives.
Strange how things can develop from some small data anomaly of which the
data subject may not be aware, or even become aware, until the damage is
done. The data subject should quite rightly feel very aggrieved over all of
this. I guess the whole problem could be as the result of a system designed
in such a way as to be very carefully controlled, in order to avoid unlawful
manipulation.
Maybe the problem will develop if National ID arrives.
Of course if the perpetrator had an ID with those details, matters could
become even worse.
Roland Perry on 12 August 2004 at 14:53 said:-
> Why can't they transcribe the information in the first record into a new
> one (correcting the errors) and then delete the first record? Or has the
> system been set up specifically to exclude such a process?
The scenario does not identify if the correct personal details of the true
offender are known. One can only assume something was known.
The police do of course with justification argue that when a person has used
an alias, they are likely to do so again, and so it is necessary for them to
retain that material against the offender's record. Not very just for the
innocent person, especially with frequent confusion about the identity when
the record is found using the alias details, if it is even recognised the
details are an alias. The CRB does of course bring these matters to light
more regularly than previously.
I wonder if the individual could go to the convicting court and ask for the
conviction against their name to be overturned. DPA 1998 s.14(4) may be a
simpler route. Perhaps both processes would need to be followed.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 12 August 2004 14:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Deleting inaccurate data
>
>
> In a message dated 12/08/04 11:18:34 GMT Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > You appear to be confusing the PNC with Crime Recording. It
> certainly is
> > possible for a record to be removed from the PNC
> Convictions History if
> > required.
> -------
>
> Maybe it would have helped if I had quoted directly from the
> ICO report:
>
> "As a result of a Police National Computer check a man found
> out that his
> record contained details of crimes which he had not
> committed. His innocence was
> confirmed through finger print evidence. It was established
> that the person
> who had in fact committed the offences was an illegal
> immigrant who had stolen
> Mr X's identity. The Police thought it impossible to remove
> the record as they
> had no other way of recording information about the offences.
> However they
> agreed to put comments on the record about Mr X's physical
> characteristics
> proving that he was not the offender."
>
> Any better?
>
> Ian B
>
>
> Ian Buckland
> Managing Director
> Keep IT Legal Ltd
>
> Please Note: The information given above does not replace or
> negate the need
> for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
> essential that you do not
> rely upon any advice given without contacting your solicitor.
> If you need
> further explanation of any points raised please contact Keep
> I.T. Legal Ltd at
> the address below:
>
> 55 Curbar Curve
> Inkersall, Chesterfield
> Derbyshire S43 3HP
> (Reg 3822335)
> Tel: 01246 473999
> Fax: 01246 470742
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|