Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> Law abiding citizens co-operating with law enforcement is one thing. You
> only search premises if you can't find the material by any other means, you
> don't access data using RIPA unless acquisition of data is both necessary
> and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by obtaining the data.

So why did the police serve me with a DPA S29 notice as their _first_
act?  Why not simply ask me the question?  Yes, I happen to know that an
S29 notice is basically a letter of comfort so that I would be protected
in any subsequent DPA dispute over the information I gave.  But it's not
drafted like that, and to the naive reads as a demand to produce
information; certainly, the policeman that phoned me spoke to me as
though it were.

> It would never be needed to be used against someone who would helpfully
> disclose information.

So why are DPA S29 notices used to do so?  The police act as though they
are a demand to produce information, based on my experience, and they
reach for them as a first resort.

> "Excuse me Mr X, suspected fraudulent investment schemer/dealer in unfit
> meat, please would you tell me whether you did ring Mr Y, suspected
> fraudulent investment schemer/supplier of unfit meat, umpteen times on the
> umpteenth?"

Again, interesting that you dismiss law-abiding citizens with a ``Fine''
but have worked examples for the suspects.

> Not always realistic is it? 

I don't know, and to be frank I'm not sure I care.  I'm _not_ a
suspected fraudulent investment schemer, and nor is my employer.  Why,
then, was I served an S.29 notice for something I would quite happily
have given up voluntarily?

> > Obviously, if the
> > Home Office position is that everyone whose privacy is to be 
> > breached is
> > a criminal, because otherwise there wouldn't be a need to breach their
> > privacy, the question you ask is very easy to answer.  For those of us
> > who believe that there are law abiding citizens outside Simon Watkin's
> > office, it's a little trickier.
> 
> That isn't the Home Office position.

So why at SfS2 was it unable to say, or apparently understand, the words
``alleged'' and ``suspected''?  Home Office speakers consistently
referred to the need to intercept criminal's communications.  Not
suspects, not material witnesses, not people who are alleged to know
things.  Criminals.

> I haven't said it is.  I've asked
> about when might the need for intrusion be justified; how the processes for
> authorisation and oversight, and for redress and sanctions if (when) abuse
> of power occurs, should operate; how personal information will be used,
> stored and destroyed and how the public can know how and in what
> circumstances their privacy can be at risk in the interest of public
> protection and public safety.

Last time, the Home Office consulted almost no one, issued a document
which managed to rally the Telegraph, the Guardian and MPs of almost
every political hue to oppose it, and prompted a climb down by the Home
Secretary who, you say, bears no responsiblity for the documents his
department issues (a common theme: you really do have to wonder what the
point in voting is when civil servants can issue major policy documents
with no input from elected officials).  You dismiss this as a blunder,
so that's OK them, and tell us there was another document, which made it
all clear, which was only shown to MPs, which you won't publish, but if
we saw it we would understand you were on the side of the angels all
along.

Now we're expected to believe that the self-same department, the
self-same Home Secretary who knows nothing about the documents he
issues, and the self-same civil servants, are filled with the joys of
consultation and are working on a document which will make us all happy
and content to have our privacy invaded.  And to prevent such ``major''
crimes as clocking of second-hand motors and fly-tipping.  If we all
promise to get an HPI check on the next car I buy, can we have our
privacy back?

I geuss fly-tipping, meat packing, gas fitting and car clocking are the
four asthmatic donkeys of the apocalypse.

ian