Taxi Driver Online

and now youve upset me

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Oh dear

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Data thieves deserve prison, says privacy chief

12/05/2006

Anyone trading illegally in personal data should be sent to prison for up to two years, according to the UK's Information Commissioner. Richard Thomas warned today that confidential information is too easily stolen from public and private organisations.

Mr Thomas is using special powers under the Data Protection Act to present a 48-page report to Parliament which describes an industry devoted to illegally buying and selling people’s personal information such as current addresses, details of car ownership, ex-directory telephone numbers or records of calls made, criminal records and bank account details.

Private investigators, tracing agents and their operatives – often working loosely through several intermediaries – are the main suppliers, according to the report. Information is usually obtained by making payments to staff or impersonating the target individual or another official. Some victims are in the public eye; others are entirely private citizens.

The ultimate buyers of illegally obtained personal information include journalists, financial institutions and local authorities wishing to trace debtors, estranged spouses seeking details of their ex-partner’s whereabouts or finances and criminals intent on fraud or witness or juror intimidation.

Up to £750 is paid for telephone account enquires, according to one investigation. In another case, an agent was invoicing up to £120,000 a month for tracing activities.

The report arises from investigations carried out by the Information Commissioner’s Office, sometimes using search warrant powers. Documents seized revealed evidence of a large scale market in the trading of personal information.

It is an offence under section 55 of the current Data Protection Act 1998 to obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure of personal information without the consent of the organisation holding the data. In the six years since the Act came into force, some 1,000 section 55 complaints reached the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Between November 2002 and January 2006, the Information Commissioner brought 25 prosecutions in Crown and Magistrates courts in England and Wales. Convictions were obtained in 22 cases; but the highest fine was £1,000 and most penalties were much lower.

The penalties are too low, says the Commissioner, and they do not have a deterrent effect.

"People care about their privacy and have a right to expect that their personal details should remain secure from those with no right to see them," said Mr Thomas. "Disclosure of even apparently innocuous personal information can be highly damaging in some situations – such as the address of a woman fleeing domestic violence."

He warned that organisations can also be victims and warned them to be fully aware of the risks of unauthorised disclosure. He urged them to take strong precautions. "Plugging the gaps becomes ever more urgent as the government rolls out its programme of joined-up public services and joined up computer systems,” he said.

Mr Thomas added: “Low penalties devalue this serious data protection offence in the public mind and mask the seriousness of the crime, even within the judicial system. They do little to deter those who seek to buy or supply private information that should remain private."

His office proposes a prison sentence of up to two years for people convicted by the crown courts and up to six months for those found guilty by magistrates. "The aim is not to send more people to prison," he said, "but to discourage all who might be tempted to engage in this trade – whether as suppliers or buyers."

The Commissioner will publish a follow-up report in six months to record responses, reactions and progress towards implementing the report’s proposals. He is also hoping that the issue will be raised in Parliament.

conflicts a little with the FOI does it not JD?

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

In what way?

I dont really want to name anyone specifically.

However, I could say if I went onto a certain LA's website prior to last month I could have obtained drivers licenses, drivers convictions, licensing records, home address, signatures!

The argument is, should a licensed driver when committing a licensing offence, and is taken to task in the public interest (by the appropriate committee) to task, should he have all the above details put on the internet (in the public interest?)

The obvious conflict is the publics right to know what their local authority are doing, and the drivers right to confidentiality,

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

In respect of the Taxi trade certain items of information are a matter of public record. If you are asking should that public information be published on the internet or is it legal to publish that information on the internet then I would assume those who have taken the steps to publish such information are aware of their data protection responsibilities.

If you are asking me if it is legal to publish public information, then that is another matter? lol

JD

I tend to think the FOI infringes on data protection

(or vice verse)

the government seem miffed with people exploiting the very law they brought in

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

You have to remember that the FOI Act applies only to information held by public bodies. In most cases private personal information which has no relevance to a request will be withheld. If a council is asked for certain public information under FOI act and then discloses the name and address of the person or persons requesting that information to a third party, then they would be in breach of the data protection act.

FOI requests for names and addresses held by public bodies will almost always be denied. However if you reside in Sefton and happen to be a close confidant of the Licensing officer there, you may get that information for free?

I can see you have more than a passing interest in our data protection laws, perhaps you should write an article on the subject in the next edition of Taxi Talk whenever that may be? Assuming of course you feel confident enough to do so?

JD

I was going to write something a few months ago (in respect to what I have written above).

However, it would seem I managed to solve one particular issue by merely emailing the FOI officer and asking if it was in the public interest.

To this end the details still remain, but the signatures and addresses are removed.

Perhaps a article warning people to be aware would be in the interst of the trade though, if it happens in one place, its bound to happen in others.

regards

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I notice you specifically mention public exposure of convictions as against other types of information? I can't answer for a councils policy of the way they publicise licensing offenders. There is nothing in law that I know of to stop them from publishing information of offences on the internet if it is a matter of public record.

I won't comment on the rights or wrongs of publishing such information on the internet or whether its in the public interest, only to say that those who do publish such information should think long and hard before they do.

JD

I guess thats why they removed it after a simple email



Okay then JD, heres a non related one for you to ponder!

Just say a driver has been arrested and charged by the police for an alleged offence that hasnt yet gone to trial.

The LA decide the alleged offence warrents an immediate suspension (perhaps the wrong term) asks the driver to hand in his badge (prior to any court case)

Leeds vs. Hussein stated the council were able to do this and compensation could not be sought (on a subsequent aquittal)

However, publicity wise....can the LA advise the press? before the trial?

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

There is nothing stopping the LA advising the press about a forthcoming case but the press like everyone else are bound by our contempt of court laws. The press cannot publish any information that might prejudice the rights of the individual to a fair trial or publish information that might be detrimental to the trial. The press are bound by the contempt of court act.

You can read the press code of practice here.

http://pcc.codecircus.co.uk/cop/cop.asp

You will find that when such information is reported in the press they always use the word "allegedly".

It should also be remembered that every case for trial is a matter of public record.

Are you asking is it within the law for a licensing authority to draw the attention of a particular case to the press? Or are you asking is it in the public interest?

JD

Neither JD

Just wanted an opinion

I suppose the press writing anything prior to a council meeting could be consider prejudicial, its one thing writing an article on what a committee are to consider, quite another to give an opinion.

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I suspect it's a bit like when a suspect is charged with an offence, in which case only the person's name and address and the charge can be published, and this prevents prejudicing a fair trial.

I remember when the Yorkshire Ripper was charged, and suddenly the words 'Yorkshire Ripper' (which were never off the airwaves at the time) disappeared and instead it was merely reported that Peter Sutcliffe had been charged in relation to the murders. To call him the YR or even use that phrase in relation to reporting the matter would clearly have been prejudicial to a fair trial.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk