[log in to unmask] on 26 February 2004 at 12:02 said:-
> The Information
> Commissioner then informed the police force that he would be
> taking enforcement action against them. The police force
> then decided that in view of the time that had elapsed, and
> as no further information about the data subject had come to
> their notice they would delete the data from their records."
Sounds like a dispute over the retention times was eventually determined
by the police themselves - by removing the material in question.
If the police delete material following a complaint by the data subject
or the ICO, that decision is theirs. Where there is some confidence in
material held, it could equally be retained, opening the possibility of
engaging the supporting legal processes. The ICO's enforcement action
was merely the first step, one which the police force involved did not
appear to wish invoked, which itself seems to say much about confidence
in the data in question, as the police service are not generally slow at
taking a firm stand where deemed necessary. viz the ACPO submission to
the Bichard inquiry.
Given that material within police intelligence files may be originated
anonymously, be completely unknown to the data subject, be opinion based
and never developed/verified in any way, it seems reasonable data
subjects should have an opportunity to challenge it where possible.
Perhaps some in the police would prefer that no challenge were possible,
I guess post Durrant that those officers would store some material in an
unstructured hard copy form - but then the ICO could not be blamed for
any deletion (or could he). As I understand it for serious organised
crime where the security services are the investigators, that situation
does exist. Perhaps the police would wish to become similar to the
security services in that respect.
Using the enquiry resulting from the Soham case to express a wish for
further clarity in an existing flexible framework of retention seems to
be merely an indication of a wish for some stability and certainty
rather than a need for an ability to retain.
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: 26 February 2004 12:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Astonishing excuses for less than competent policing?
>
>
> In a message dated 26/02/04 08:58:00 GMT Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > Nevertheless, there is anecdotal evidence that the police are
> > pressured by the IC to delete data. Ask a force DP officer if you
> > don't believe me, I have heard several of them complaining that the
> > Commissioner's views post-Soham are not consistent with his
> practice.
>
> --------
> There's also evidence in the Commissioner's Annual Report:
>
> "A data subject complained that a police force had disclosed
> personal data about him to his employer that had resulted in
> him losing his job. At the time of the complaint the police
> force had held the information for over three years. The
> information consisted of allegations about the data subject
> but no police action had been taken on these, the data
> subject had never been interviewed or charged and the force
> held no other information about him. Until the information
> was disclosed to his employer the data subject was unaware
> that the po lice held any data about him. The police force
> were requested to delete the information as it had been kept
> for longer than necessary for the purpose. They refused to do
> so and maintained that as the information had been regularly
> reviewed they could continue to retain it. The Information
> Commissioner then informed the police force that he would be
> taking enforcement action against them. The police force
> then decided that in view of the time that had elapsed, and
> as no further information about the data subject had come to
> their notice they would delete the data from their records."
>
> Hardly consistent with the Commissioner's assertion: "The
> Information Commissioner has given no formal instructions or
> directions to any Police force on the retention of personal
> information under the DPA."
>
> Did he mean "no general instructions or directions, excluding
> specific cases" ?
>
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|