In message <001701c48088$b67bf0e0$3d3468d5@com>, at 17:23:19 on Thu, 12
Aug 2004, Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]> writes
>> 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.
This covers the isolated situation that the offender is using the alias
belonging to the innocent party. What if the innocent party's name
appeared entirely because of an administrative error? (The police do
make these, I'm sure; even on occasions things like ram-raiding 12
Bloggs Gdns at 5am, rather than 12 Bloggs Crescent.)
The police must be capable of initiating a crime record where the name
of the perpetrator is unknown. I understand most crimes a start off in
that condition!
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
