METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE OFFICER FINED AND REPRIMANDED FOR MIS USE

[David Biggins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Watkin Simon [mailto:Simon.Watkin@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]

> > From: David Hansen [mailto:davidh@spidacom.co.uk]
> > Sent: 25 November 2002 13:37
> > 
> > Had the Home Office been serious about balancing rights with 
> > responsibilities RIP would have contained appropriate penalties for 
> > misuse by Toms, Dicks and Harriets.
> 
> That point is beginning to sink in.

The question is one of whether it is sinking in with our political masters.

> > However, it seems that they think 
> > the world is divided into people with white and black hats 
> and those 
> > that work for any government organisation, or semi-government 
> > organisation, are the ones with white hats and thus will never do 
> > anything wrong.
> 
> We don't think that.  For instance here's an example from the Police
> Complaints Authority yesterday.  I notice that the PCA "required" the
> Metropolitan Police to investigate a Police Constable's unauthorised
> intrusion into the privacy of his former partner and family 
> members.  And
> the value placed on that?  He was reprimanded.

In other words, the system failed to recognise that he had actually done
sufficient wrong to require actual punishment, despite a clear breach of
someone else's privacy, using official records.

This is precisely the sort of risk that we have all been warning of,  and
the slap on the wrist he has received has served merely to confirm that
officialdom does not actually care about the privacy rights of individuals.

By all appearances, the officer concerned has probably not even been removed
from the physical opportunity to repeat the offence.

> It's is not often that I venture a personal opinion on this list but a
> reprimand in that situation strikes me as a failure to 
> acknowledge the value
> of privacy and that unlawful or unauthorised privacy 
> violation, whether by
> criminals or by law enforcers, be seen as a crime in itself.

Which is exactly the point everyone has been making. 

The Home Office and Government have repeatedly sought to increase the
opportunity and mechanisms for intrusion on personal privacy,  and in doing
so have consistently, totally and utterly failed to provide adequate
protection for such privacy, openness to allow detection of abuses, or
adequate and mandatory sanctions against those who commit such abuses.

Until the Government and the HO recognise that such mechanisms are, to many,
of rather greater importance than that of increasing the intrusion
opportunities,  it is merely going to create the increasing appearance of a
surveillance state.

> Police Complaints Authority: 25 November 2002
> METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE OFFICER FINED AND REPRIMANDED FOR 
> MISUSE OF
> CONFIDENTIAL DATA
> A Metropolitan Police Service Constable has admitted three 
> breaches of the
> Police Code of Conduct at a misconduct hearing. 

THE POLICE CODE OF CONDUCT.  Note that he has not been charged with any
criminal offence,  such as breach of the Computer Misuse Act,  or a breach
of the Data Protection Act, or indeed anything else.  

Not only does this highlight the lack of adequate legal sanction against
those who break the rules,  it also demonstrates clearly the way that the
police, when investigating themselves, will always seek to protect their
officers by investigating the minimum possible "offence".

> He was reprimanded on two
> allegations under Code of Conduct 6 (Lawful Orders) 

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.  I'm sure that has other PNC users (and
abusers) shaking in their boots,  and has sent a clear and salutary lesson
to all those in various government departments with actual or proposed
snooping powers that such behaviour will not be tolerated....   Ha ha.

> and was fined for one allegation under the Code of Conduct 7
(Confidentiality).

Not a sufficient punishment to deter others, I feel, unless the fine was
large - which since the fine amount is not given, I doubt.  This has all the
hallmarks of the standard token slap on the wrist, talked up to sound bigger
than it is, and failing even at that.

> The independent Police Complaints Authority required the 
> Metropolitan Police
> Service to take disciplinary action against the officer for 
> alleged breaches
> of the Code of Conduct.

And without that "requirement" what was the Met's own prior intention?   To
ignore it, and brush it under the carpet?

> The allegations related to unauthorised transactions and searches of
> criminal records and criminal intelligence databases and also to the
> unauthorised disclosure of confidential information to Edmonton County
> Court. Some of the database searches related to his previous 
> partner and
> were conducted at a time when he was seeking access to their 
> daughter. The
> other searches related to his mother and his mother-in-law.

Something which I am sure the investigators regarded as a mitigating
circumstance.   I doubt the public would.

> Commenting on the misconduct action, PCA member Marcus 
> Williams said: "The misuse of confidential electronic data is something
which is 
> regarded with great concern. 

Ah yes:

"We take our responsibility for X seriously" -> "We don't give a damn about
X but we know bad PR when we see it"

"We take our responsibility for X very seriously" -> "We don't give a damn
about X,  but we have some statutory responsibility for X and so we doe the
bare minimum needed to protect our directors from personal liability"

"X is regarded with great concern" -> "The shit has already hit the fan, and
we hope that by sounding concerned, we can bury this incident without having
to make any real changes".

> It is particularly worrying when the person 
> involved is a police officer and the data comes from confidential criminal

> records and criminal intelligence databases. 

Trans:  If this had come from someone other than a police officer, and from
someone in a "normal" government department trawling the records, we could
probably have hushed it up without it ever becoming public, and without
having to discipline a valued employee.

> While the stress of a domestic dispute may
> explain the officer's actions, it does not mitigate them or 
> exonerate him.

Except in the eyes of those seeking to minimise the offence, and setting the
trivial punishments he received, obviously.

> "From the Authority's inception, it has warned officers 
> against misusing data on the PNC. Data on police computers must remain 
> confidential and not be used for private purposes," he said.

Then why does it not provide real protection and sanction against such
abuses?

This is no more than a sticking plaster exercise.

## dave ##