Tim Trent says:
<By the way, WHY is my Date of Birth and my Gender collected by the
paper? <It seems to be to be "Excessive" data!
Market research purposes I would guess. The Daily Telegraph wishes to
build a profile of online readers by age, gender and any other elements
they asked for, such as regional spread. Often some of these fields on a
registration form are not mandatory. But the form should include a data
protection clause.
Gil
Gil Richardson
Senior Information Manager
RCGP
email: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.rcgp.org.uk
Tel: 020 7581 3232 ext 231
Fax: 020 7584 1992
"Promoting Excellence in Family Medicine"
This email is confidential. It may not be disclosed to, or used by,
anyone other than the addressee. If you receive this message in error,
please advise the sender immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Trent
Sent: 25 February 2004 23:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Astonishing excuses for less than competent policing?
The Daily Telegraph was hammering on about this today. The simple
question
is this: Why does ACPO not use common sense?"
I have quoted the article coz I had to register to see it, and it;s
truly
not worth the bother. By the way, WHY is my Date of Birth and my Gender
collected by the paper? It seems to be to be "Excessive" data!
Article Begins
The most senior police officers in the country condemned the
Government's
Information Commissioner yesterday, accusing him of undermining the
safety
of children by ordering the destruction of valuable criminal
intelligence.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said Richard Thomas had
demanded
that police forces delete convictions for violence and allegations of
sexual
assault from computer and intelligence files in the interests of data
protection and civil liberties.
Acpo said the commissioner's repeated interventions in record-keeping
showed
that he "clearly misunderstands" everyday police work. It had been
"frankly
absurd" for him to claim after the Soham murders trial that he never
interfered with police record-keeping.
"He wants fewer offence details recorded on the police national
computer,
not more," it said.
"The Police Service has clearly indicated that this would inhibit the
safety
of vulnerable persons, children in particular, and the public in
general."
Acpo's fierce attack was made in written evidence to the Bichard inquiry
into the failures in vetting that allowed Ian Huntley, the Soham
murderer,
to become a school caretaker despite a long history of suspected sexual
offences.
After Huntley's conviction for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica
Chapman, Humberside constabulary said it had deleted intelligence
information about him in
<http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/19/ns
oh19
.xml> an effort to comply with the Data Protection Act.
Mr Thomas said in his inquiry submission, also published yesterday, that
Humberside's decision to delete intelligence "of such obvious value for
the
prevention and detection of crime" was "astonishing".
He said: "There was nothing in the Data Protection Act, in the Acpo code
or
in the guidance from my office from which Humberside police could
reasonably
conclude that they were required to delete intelligence information on
Ian
Huntley within a very short timescale.
"It appears that Humberside's approach to the weeding of criminal
intelligence records was out of step with the practice in most, if not
all,
other police forces."
David Westwood, the Humberside chief constable, is to appear at the
inquiry
next week. He will be relieved that Acpo has sprung to his defence. In
its
submission, the association says that the commissioner intervenes in
police
work "to the detriment of the Police Service in general and vulnerable
members of the community in particular".
It cites examples where the data protection watchdog has taken
enforcement
action against police forces, demanding that they delete records from
their
database. All these have occurred since the Soham murders in August
2002.
In one case, in July 2003, the commissioner demanded that South
Yorkshire
police delete from a woman's record a juvenile conviction for actual
bodily
harm dating from 1979. The commissioner's office said the woman could be
"harmed or embarrassed by the disclosure of information relating to a
minor
offence many years ago".
Acpo said it strongly disputed the commissioner's view and said a
conviction
for actual bodily harm "is not minor or irrelevant data . . . especially
if
the individual is seeking employment with vulnerable persons or
children".
In September 2003 a similar request was made of West Yorkshire police
over a
man who wanted juvenile convictions that carried a three-month custodial
sentence to be "weeded out" of his record.
In a case with echoes of Huntley, the commissioner asked an unnamed
police
force to delete intelligence relating to allegations that a man sexually
assaulted young males in 1991 and 1998.
The commissioner questioned the force's retention of the intelligence
"if it
were only being held for employment vetting purposes".
Acpo retorted: "This statement clearly misunderstands the need to
process
such information for the purposes of operational policing and the
subsequent
requirement to prevent crime through the employment process."
The police chiefs were "surprised" at Mr Thomas's claim after the Soham
trial in December 2003 that his office did not give formal instructions
or
directions to any police force about retaining information.
Their statement says: "All the evidence shows the Information
Commissioner
to be very active and influential in this area. Any suggestion to the
contrary is, in our opinion, frankly absurd."
The statement calls on Sir Michael Bichard, the chairman of the inquiry,
to
establish firm rules on record keeping and vetting.
It says that criminal records should be retained for the lifetime of the
individual and issues a call for the establishment of a national policy
on
holding "non-conviction data".
The inquiry begins taking evidence tomorrow when James Eadie, the
inquiry
counsel, makes his opening statement.
Article ends
Tim Trent - Consultant
Direct: +44(0)1344 392644 Mobile:+44(0)7710 126618
email: [log in to unmask]
<blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Marketing Improvement Limited, Abbey House, Grenville Place, Bracknell,
United Kingdom, RG12 1BP <blocked::http://www.marketingimprovement.com/>
http://www.marketingimprovement.com
This message is for the intended addressee's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission.
If
you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify
the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual
sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is
authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet.
The service is powered by MessageLabs.
_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or
any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is
Prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by using the reply function and then
permanently delete what you have received. Any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and not necessarily those of The Royal College
of General Practitioners.
We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of
transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
carry out your own virus checks on any attachments to
this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss
or damage caused by software viruses.
|
