Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dodgy British police responsible for 2'135 data breaches

  • 05-07-2016 7:08pm
    #1
    Impetus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭


    The civil liberties campaign group said in the Safe in Police hands? report that the breaches happened between June 2011 and December 2015.

    Over 800 police staff accessed personal information during the period that was not necessary for police use, and much of the data was shared inappropriately with third parties, the report claimed.

    Putting aside the sanitized language, this means that bent officers accessed personal data to make some green and passed the information to organised crime groups.

    More at : http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2463915/dodgy-coppers-responsible-for-2-135-data-breaches-at-uk-police-forces


Comments

  • #2
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    While any form of DPA breach is an issue (and by no means restricted to UK police forces, there was a Garda who used police powers to access voicemail on her ex's phone) I think you are mistakenly lumping the severity of the breach together. Your wording suggests that many sold information to organised crime groups whereas in that report there is ONE instance of a police officer reported as selling/giving data to an organised crime group.

    The majority of incidents are accessing data without specific reason to (if I were in law enforcement and saw a report on a known organised crime group, I think I'd be tempted to have a look myself).

    The main issue seems to be disclosure of information to non-authorised personel. But that doesnt mean the names of suspects in an active investigation were given to reporters which resulted in the case falling down and evil people walking free. That can be as simpe as "yes dad, you got a parking ticket on tuesday" or "yes dear, you were speeding. I can see the report here". Still an abuse of access but nowhere near as serious as selling info to OGCs.

    Another takeaway is that while 55% were not followed up with disciplinary action, 45% were. How many were disciplinary action worthy to start with and required more than a "dont do it again" or "you know you're not allowed to do that right?".

    Its an interesting read but a bit too dramatic for my liking. The executive summary is written to sound exciting and the statistics are worded in favour of being outraged. Also, a "big brother watch report" doesnt sound very neutral to start with.


Advertisement