Intelligence data about protestors and alleged extremists
Read this contribution from N A from the bottom up - How
many of us have heard of National Extremism Tactical Co-ordinating Unit
(NETCU)? How many of us are aware that the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) are a limited liability company that make a profit of
£18 million a year by offering their services and data to any
organisation that is prepared to pay for it?
B&A
Please note that N would also like to make the following points :
- there is an opportunity to send submission to the ICO, for a limited
time, and if possible you should take advantage of this;
- perhaps for example, you may wish to outline scenarios of concern to
you;
- there should be further information forthcoming, from the Home
Office, in a week or so, which may help you to focus your thoughts.
Fwd: Enquiry to the ICO [Ref. ENQ0275992]
Wednesday, 4 November, 2009 4:04 PM
Subject: Enquiry to the ICO[Ref. ENQ0275992]
From: casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Mr A
RE: ENQ0275992
Thank you for your enquiry to the Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO), dated 28th October 2009, in relation to the Association of Chief
Police Officers’ (ACPO) use of a database of domestic extremists.
Your email asked a number of questions, I will attempt to answer them
in order.
You asked for details on our proposed investigation into ACPO’s
collection and use of data gathered about protestors and political
activists. Our investigation is currently in its preliminary stages
and, therefore, it is too early to state categorically what form the
investigation will take; its nature and its duration will depend upon
what we discover during our initial enquiries.
Whilst our investigations do not generally involve actively seeking
submissions, we are always willing to consider information received
from interested parties. Therefore, if you have any specific
information or concerns, further to those voiced in your initial
correspondence, that you feel it may be useful to bring to our
attention, please do not hesitate to communicate them to us.
In addition you raised a number of concerns in relation to ACPO’s
status. It would be beyond the remit of the ICO to comment upon the
accountability or statutory status of ACPO. ACPO are required by law to
treat personal data in accordance with the requirements of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (the Act), and we treat complaints about ACPO as we
would any other data controller.
You also raise concerns about the data-sharing that the National
Extremism Tactical Co-ordinating Unit (NETCU) undertakes with private
sector companies. You ask what guidelines and oversight this
data-sharing operates within. Unfortunately, we are unable to answer
that question; you would need to address your query to NETCU directly.
Our concern would be that such data-sharing needs to comply with the
requirements of the Act. In accordance with this, we would expect NETCU
to have produced internal guidance and an adequate system of governance
to ensure compliance with the Act. Many organisations will make such
documents publicly available; it may be that you could obtain copies
from NETCU.
You ask about ACPO’s status in relation to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) and suggest that their voluntary co-operation is inadequate.
There may be a misunderstanding in this respect: ACPO will not be
exempt from the FOIA.
It may be useful if I were to outline the background to this issue: In
July 2009 the Ministry of Justice published their response to a
consultation on the extension of the FOIA, which closed in February
2008.
Our response to the initial consultation can be found on our website,
here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/consultations/consultation_responses.aspx
The Ministry of Justice’s response, from July 2009, can be found here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/consultation-response-
_section5.pdf
This makes it clear that ACPO have volunteered to be subject to a
Section 5 order.
Section 5 of the FOIA gives the Secretary of State the power to
designate further public authorities for the purposes of the FOIA.
This means that the FOIA will be amended to include ACPO in the list of
designated public authorities found in Schedule 1 of the FOIA. As a
result the FOIA will apply to ACPO in exactly the same way that it
applies to any other public authority listed in Schedule 1, the fact
that they volunteered to be subject to a Section 5 order will have no
bearing on the extent to which the FOIA will apply to them.
I trust that this adequately explains this development, although it
should be noted that the matter is still subject to ongoing discussion
between the Ministry of Justice and ACPO; as a result the Section 5
order has yet to be finalised.
I hope that this letter adequately covers the points that you raised in
your correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Duncan
Data Protection Practice – Public Sector
__________________________________________________________________
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk
Subject: Investigation of ACPO and police handling of intelligence data
about protestors and alleged extremists
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:38 +0000
From: N A
To: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Christopher Graham
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
Dear Mr Graham,
Investigation of ACPO and police handling of intelligence data about
protestors and alleged extremists
1) The Guardian has published an account that you holding an
investigation into personal data held by the police. This appeared to
be linked to the issue of data gathered about protestors and alleged
'extremists'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/police-challenged-protest-files
Police forces challenged over files held on law-abiding protesters
* Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 October 2009
Chief constables will be forced to justify the legality of recording
thousands of law-abiding protesters on secret nationwide databases, the
government's privacy watchdog announced today.
Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, said he had "genuine
concerns about the ever increasing amount" of personal data held by
police.
Three units given the task of monitoring "domestic extremists" are run
by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), including the
National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which operates as a
giant database of political activists.
2) Please would you tell me about your proposed investigation. What
will be its nature and duration?
Will it be possible to make submissions about this issue? Over what
time-frame should submissions be made?
3) I wish to ask you to consider the following issues : -
i) The status of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, a
private limited company, has inadequate provision for oversight or
accountability for its statutory status and delegated responsibility
for national police functions, particularly in regard to handling
personal data.
ii) The gathering and processing of personal data that has been
delegated to ACPO, with the three police national extremism units -
National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), the National Extremism
Tactical Coordinating Unit (NETCU) and National Domestic Extremism Team
, (NDET) - and arrangements for managing this, operating as
subsidiaries of ACPO.
iii) NETCU undertakes significant data-sharing of personal information
about protestors, as part of its programme of liaison and cooperation
with numerous private sector companies. What guidelines and oversight
does this data-sharing operate within?
The data-sharing is described in the following articles: -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-
database
Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-
domestic-extremism
How police rebranded lawful protest as 'domestic extremism'
iv) The government has said that ACPO is exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act,
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10182
Quote:
Companies that carry out functions of a public nature will not have to
handle Freedom of Information requests, the Ministry of Justice
announced yesterday. Proposals to extend the regime to the private
sector will not progress at this time.
What are your views on this? Do you recommend that it should be
included within the provisions of the Act?
v) I would respectfully submit that voluntary cooperation of ACPO with
FoI requests, which has been offered recently, is inadequate because,
for example, it gives no protection in cases where incomplete,
inadequate or misleading replies may be given.
vi) The government may have moved national police functions,
particularly with regard to data-gathering, data-processing and
data-sharing, into ACPO because it is exempt from democratic
accountability, statutory oversight and the provisions of the FoI Act.
I respectfully suggest this should not be left as a loophole that could
be exploited in bad-faith (if bad-faith existed, now or in the future).
Systems should not depend upon good faith - they should provide
comprehensive safeguards.
4) I have made a previous complaint to you, about NETCU and its
handling of personal data, about 2 years ago.
5) I am writing as a private individual, in this instance, and not on
behalf of any organisation.
6) Email is my preferred form of communication.
Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
N A
Please note that N would also like to make the following points :
- there is an opportunity to send submission to the ICO, for a limited
time, and if possible you should take advantage of this;
- perhaps for example, you may wish to outline scenarios of concern to
you;
- there should be further information forthcoming, from the Home
Office, in a week or so, which may help you to focus your thoughts.
Fwd: Enquiry to the ICO [Ref. ENQ0275992]
Wednesday, 4 November, 2009 4:04 PM
Subject: Enquiry to the ICO[Ref. ENQ0275992]
From: casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Mr A
RE: ENQ0275992
Thank you for your enquiry to the Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO), dated 28th October 2009, in relation to the Association of Chief
Police Officers’ (ACPO) use of a database of domestic extremists.
Your email asked a number of questions, I will attempt to answer them
in order.
You asked for details on our proposed investigation into ACPO’s
collection and use of data gathered about protestors and political
activists. Our investigation is currently in its preliminary stages
and, therefore, it is too early to state categorically what form the
investigation will take; its nature and its duration will depend upon
what we discover during our initial enquiries.
Whilst our investigations do not generally involve actively seeking
submissions, we are always willing to consider information received
from interested parties. Therefore, if you have any specific
information or concerns, further to those voiced in your initial
correspondence, that you feel it may be useful to bring to our
attention, please do not hesitate to communicate them to us.
In addition you raised a number of concerns in relation to ACPO’s
status. It would be beyond the remit of the ICO to comment upon the
accountability or statutory status of ACPO. ACPO are required by law to
treat personal data in accordance with the requirements of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (the Act), and we treat complaints about ACPO as we
would any other data controller.
You also raise concerns about the data-sharing that the National
Extremism Tactical Co-ordinating Unit (NETCU) undertakes with private
sector companies. You ask what guidelines and oversight this
data-sharing operates within. Unfortunately, we are unable to answer
that question; you would need to address your query to NETCU directly.
Our concern would be that such data-sharing needs to comply with the
requirements of the Act. In accordance with this, we would expect NETCU
to have produced internal guidance and an adequate system of governance
to ensure compliance with the Act. Many organisations will make such
documents publicly available; it may be that you could obtain copies
from NETCU.
You ask about ACPO’s status in relation to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) and suggest that their voluntary co-operation is inadequate.
There may be a misunderstanding in this respect: ACPO will not be
exempt from the FOIA.
It may be useful if I were to outline the background to this issue: In
July 2009 the Ministry of Justice published their response to a
consultation on the extension of the FOIA, which closed in February
2008.
Our response to the initial consultation can be found on our website,
here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/consultations/consultation_responses.aspx
The Ministry of Justice’s response, from July 2009, can be found here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/consultation-response-
_section5.pdf
This makes it clear that ACPO have volunteered to be subject to a
Section 5 order.
Section 5 of the FOIA gives the Secretary of State the power to
designate further public authorities for the purposes of the FOIA.
This means that the FOIA will be amended to include ACPO in the list of
designated public authorities found in Schedule 1 of the FOIA. As a
result the FOIA will apply to ACPO in exactly the same way that it
applies to any other public authority listed in Schedule 1, the fact
that they volunteered to be subject to a Section 5 order will have no
bearing on the extent to which the FOIA will apply to them.
I trust that this adequately explains this development, although it
should be noted that the matter is still subject to ongoing discussion
between the Ministry of Justice and ACPO; as a result the Section 5
order has yet to be finalised.
I hope that this letter adequately covers the points that you raised in
your correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Duncan
Data Protection Practice – Public Sector
__________________________________________________________________
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk
Subject: Investigation of ACPO and police handling of intelligence data
about protestors and alleged extremists
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:38 +0000
From: N A
To: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Christopher Graham
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
Dear Mr Graham,
Investigation of ACPO and police handling of intelligence data about
protestors and alleged extremists
1) The Guardian has published an account that you holding an
investigation into personal data held by the police. This appeared to
be linked to the issue of data gathered about protestors and alleged
'extremists'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/police-challenged-protest-files
Police forces challenged over files held on law-abiding protesters
* Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 October 2009
Chief constables will be forced to justify the legality of recording
thousands of law-abiding protesters on secret nationwide databases, the
government's privacy watchdog announced today.
Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, said he had "genuine
concerns about the ever increasing amount" of personal data held by
police.
Three units given the task of monitoring "domestic extremists" are run
by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), including the
National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which operates as a
giant database of political activists.
2) Please would you tell me about your proposed investigation. What
will be its nature and duration?
Will it be possible to make submissions about this issue? Over what
time-frame should submissions be made?
3) I wish to ask you to consider the following issues : -
i) The status of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, a
private limited company, has inadequate provision for oversight or
accountability for its statutory status and delegated responsibility
for national police functions, particularly in regard to handling
personal data.
ii) The gathering and processing of personal data that has been
delegated to ACPO, with the three police national extremism units -
National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), the National Extremism
Tactical Coordinating Unit (NETCU) and National Domestic Extremism Team
, (NDET) - and arrangements for managing this, operating as
subsidiaries of ACPO.
iii) NETCU undertakes significant data-sharing of personal information
about protestors, as part of its programme of liaison and cooperation
with numerous private sector companies. What guidelines and oversight
does this data-sharing operate within?
The data-sharing is described in the following articles: -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-
database
Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-
domestic-extremism
How police rebranded lawful protest as 'domestic extremism'
iv) The government has said that ACPO is exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act,
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10182
Quote:
Companies that carry out functions of a public nature will not have to
handle Freedom of Information requests, the Ministry of Justice
announced yesterday. Proposals to extend the regime to the private
sector will not progress at this time.
What are your views on this? Do you recommend that it should be
included within the provisions of the Act?
v) I would respectfully submit that voluntary cooperation of ACPO with
FoI requests, which has been offered recently, is inadequate because,
for example, it gives no protection in cases where incomplete,
inadequate or misleading replies may be given.
vi) The government may have moved national police functions,
particularly with regard to data-gathering, data-processing and
data-sharing, into ACPO because it is exempt from democratic
accountability, statutory oversight and the provisions of the FoI Act.
I respectfully suggest this should not be left as a loophole that could
be exploited in bad-faith (if bad-faith existed, now or in the future).
Systems should not depend upon good faith - they should provide
comprehensive safeguards.
4) I have made a previous complaint to you, about NETCU and its
handling of personal data, about 2 years ago.
5) I am writing as a private individual, in this instance, and not on
behalf of any organisation.
6) Email is my preferred form of communication.
Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
N A
Posts
