Comms data requests by C&E & the Inland Revenue

[Roland Perry]

In message <000501c27bc0$15bc6280$0a00a8c0@apollo>, John R T Brazier 
<prunesquallor@proproco.co.uk> writes
>> Mr. John Denham: The Interception of Communications Act 1985 did not
>> provide for access to communications data. The Metropolitan Police made
>> approximately 127,000 separate requests for communication data under the
>> Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year. The access to communications
>> data provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
>> (RIPA) have not yet been implemented.
>
>Surely this is gibberish? The DPA has much to say on personal data,
>sensitive data, data subjects, data users and so forth. It has nothing about
>"communication data". Or has the Met used the Act in an entirely negative
>sense (ie "This data isn't covered by your Act, so we're going to have it")?
>IANAL, but this seems a refreshing approach. The DPA was meant to be about
>Data Protection, not Data Exploitation.

John Denham was undoubtedly using a shorthand for "DPA 29(3) exemption 
requests". The mechanism of the 29(3) exemption system has been 
mentioned widely on this list over the past week.

Of course, the Met may also have made DPA 29(3) exemption requests for 
other classes of data [personnel and financial records spring 
immediately to mind], but the current topic is comms data.

>And, of course, as Richard pointed out, 127K vs 155K, what's 20% between
>friends? Amazing, given that these numbers ultimately come from the same
>organization - or do they?

Are we sure they are for the exact same accounting period?
-- 
Roland Perry