5 years, 2,300 data breaches. What'll police do with our Internet Connection Records? Police forces across the UK have been responsible for “at least 2,315 data breaches” over the last five years, according to research by Big Brother Watch, prompting concerns about the increasing amount of data they're holding. Titled Safe in Police Hands? the 138-page report is released today after months of requests made by …
Six gigabytes!
Bloomin' 'eck, that would be enough to have them hung, drawn, and quartered, their head put on a spike over the gates of the city, their family sold into slavery to the googleplex, and their existence erased from the record. And all at taxpayers' expense.
"Bloomin' 'eck, that would be enough to have them hung, drawn, and quartered, their head put on a spike over the gates of the city, their family sold into slavery to the googleplex, and their existence erased from the record. And all at taxpayers' expense."
There will be no cost to the taxpayer. The Ministry of Information Retrieval will, as usual, charge the family for any and all of the costs associated with Information Retrieval.
A senior police officer was on the Radio 4 "The Bottom Line" programme last week. He was defending the imposing of civil restraint orders after people had been found "not guilty" in court.
Breaching a civil restraint order is a criminal offence. Some of the quoted restraints were on what (legal) material you could view on the internet - or when you could have consensual sex with another adult.
His argument was that where there was no evidence to support a charge or prosecution - people should be convicted on their potentially "pre-crime" activities. Internet browsing being reckoned a major source of such "evidence".
That would lead to a situation where the usual "insufficient evidence to charge" - becomes "convicted - just in case".
A "civil restrain order" (CRO) is nothing to do with criminal cases. CROs are issued when a judge considers that an application to a court for a hearing is vexatious. For example, when an individual tries to sue another on the same issue when the case is considered to have no merit.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-restraint-orders--2
I've also no idea what such a subject would be doing on the Radio 4 programme "The Bottom Line". That's a business-orientated programme which doesn't normally deal with legal issues beyond those that are relevant to businesses. Nor can I see where it was discussed last week (which was about the business implications of Brexit).
I listened to the interview on the Today programme on my way to work,it was also repeated on a news bulletin. It was actually about a Sexual Risk Order, which is designed to keep people with predatory behaviours under control. Otherwise, yep it's one hell of a thing to do to someone who has not been convicted of a crime, and should require an extremely high bar before it's applied. Like all of these things, it's bound to be misused, for "Political" and "Tough on Crime" excuses.
So far as Police Data Protection goes, it's not the IT but the people, and the same applies to any organisation, that holds data about us, Private or Public, it is quite common practice in the NHS, DWP, HMRC, Councils and Police to "Look up a mates details" for a mate. Quite often without the mate asking. So beware if you ever date someone from the Police, HMRC, DWP or Council, because they will check you out, or someone else will.
It would be possible to put lots of checks on the systems to stop, or make more difficult, these kinds of behaviours, but then the systems would become unusable, trapped in a mire of bureaucracy.
Misuse is a tiny proportion of access to these systems, and there has to be a balance of risk.
Funny how that works.
They risk a slapped wrist for pulling someone's life history
You are guaranteed to have your life history spewed out of the all the computer systems they have access to.
That's your idea of "balanced" ?
Doesn't sound too balanced to me.
I don't think you need to get stuck in bureaucracy with this, you just need proper transparency over how your data is being accessed. We can already see what data organisations hold on us but it is not a technical impossibility for them to share with us information on who has accessed that data and what their role is, when they accessed it etc (the reason why they accessed it would be more onerous, of course).
I have suggested similar with the care.data programme - give us a portal where we can see exactly who has accessed my health record and what organisation they come from. In addition, which organisation has my health record been shared with. It would make people think twice before hitting that search button.
You make that sound like such a bad thing, even though that little situational change would make all the difference and we could live in a world where rainbow colored unicorns could freely and safely roam the streets.
Wait, did I say rainbow colored unicorns? I mean straight white unicorns. High time we start looking into those suspicious deviant unicorns!
A version of Servalan, minus the exotic wardrobe.
Yes, but there's an interesting picture of her coming out of number 10 in a dress that probably wasn't intended to create the impression of large-jugged see through laciness:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674858/Tory-leadership-hopefuls-relaxed-KARAOKE-session-grilling-fellow-MPs-night-Stephen-Crabb-singing-Don-t-Stop-Now.html
Bwahahahaaha! Try and get that out of your head now! Hopefully that's not put anybody off their stroke.
I saw the server name in the URL and made the correct decision. My head is still empty.
I knew that the source would put off those lacking in moral fibre! But I encourage you to reconsider - it's worth it to imagine her seeing the same picture and asking herself "WTF was I thinking when I chose that?"
>- it's worth it to imagine her seeing the same picture and asking herself "WTF was I thinking when I chose that?"
I dared to a look, and ... nothing wrong with that dress, not something I would wear, then again, I am a man.
The sad thing is that she is there to get a job done and NO, she is not in the fashion business.
You sound like the cretins who keep track of the dresses celeb's wear, then call foul when the celeb (usually female) dares to wear the same dress/shoes/whatever twice or did not keep track of some other celeb who wore that same dress/whatever the other week/month/year.
This has to stop!
You sound like the cretins who keep track of the dresses celeb's wear, then call foul ....
Are you new round here? Most of the commentariat are highly intelligent, borderline aspergers sufferers, who neither know nor care who the celebrities of the day are.
But we do know that politicians are incompetent self serving deserve every possible insult. Now, if you want to side with Mrs May, then feel free, but I'm guessing that you won't get much support round here.
You are not addressing her correctly. It should be:
The High Chancelloress Teresa May.
Time to put Chaikovsky's 1812 Overture on the stereo once more.
The only time they will do anything is when one of these bloody stupid Plod accidentally drops misused info into the inbox of some bunch of terrorist nutjobs and a load of coppers get injured or maimed, or worse said terrorist nutters starting going after coppper's or MP's families. Maybe then they will start to take data security a bit more seriously. I don't want it to come to that, it's shouldn't but the way they carry on it's more than likely going to happen sooner or later.
If there are 800 members of staff who've used the Snooperbase for inappropriate personal reasons, that's needs to fixed right away. Zero is the only acceptable number, Theresa May will make it all totally legal so there are zero violations. Problem solved!
Look this is tip of the iceberg stuff, the only time a problem would be flagged is if it had obvious technical omissions, e.g. omitting a case number on the form to assign the search too. 99% of the misuses will never be noted because the person who would challenge them is never made aware of the search of their private data.
It would have to be egregious to be even noted as worth checking up on.
I think if, whenever a policeman makes a request for someone's data, target automatically receive a notification 3 months later a lot of this shit would end right there. Want to *really* investigate a crime, get a delay on it from a court before 3 months. If it wasn't part of an investigation then there's no reason a person shouldn't be informed that their private data was accessed.
If you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide, Mr Policeman.
The Bichard report called for a national shared police intelligence system following the Soham murders, to be put in place by the end of 2005. It (the Police national Database) eventually went live in June 2011. The reason for the massive delay was less about technology and more about getting 43 entirely separate police forces in the UK to share their intelligence. This was the first time that information about people who'd never been accused, charged or convicted of anything would be made available to other forces. The Police Information Assurance Board was crapping itself because it was all too aware of the huge problem of unauthorized access, sharing and leakage in existing systems.
The biggest delay to all this: 42 forces that categorically didn't trust the Metropolitan Police with their data.
Rightly so.
So after repeatedly demonstrating their unfitness for purpose, why the fuck are they being given an expansion of powers/data?
If I, as a fairly law-abiding citizen feel compelled to go dark just to protect myself/my clients from the consequences of these fucking idiots inevitably misusing/getting compromised/losing/etc. data then what the fuck do you think actual criminals are going to be doing?
>If I, as a fairly law-abiding citizen feel compelled to go dark just to protect myself/my clients from the consequences of these fucking idiots inevitably misusing/getting compromised/losing/etc. data
Contradiction, right there (in the minds of MI5) ... law abiding and "go dark":
Clerk: Something fishy, here, sir, don't you think ? This guy is using heavy grade encryption on his home connection.
Serg': Indeed, I need a full checkup on this guy by noon tomorrow, everything, family, mistresses, whereabouts ...In short, everything, I wanna know when's the last time that guy had diarrhoea!
The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe
The problem appears when you put your head above the parapet, write critical letters/emails to your local Police Force regarding their operation duties.
i.e. Lazy Cash Cow positioning of Speed Cameras outside Schools on Sunny Saturday afternoons when there are no children on Pavements, stating its becoming increasing difficult to drive on Britain's roads without incurring fines- (its all sticks and no carrots), with a bar being set lower and lower (lowering of limits), until it clips enough heads to generate revenue, without upsetting the masses.
Basically, putting the Point, I'm not a bloody robot or wishing to live in 'Britains' Open Prison', which it has become and to maybe, target real dangers such as speeding past a school during school run times, when there are Kids on pavements.
Police then 'theoretically' can research you from you name within the locality, access your vehicle records, and place a marker on the ANPR system, to make sure the next ANPR Hadecs3 stealth camera you go past on the M4 / M5 or M25 at 1mph above the limit, you definitely get a £100 fine in the Post.
Of course all 'theoretical', but it does make me wonder why I suddenly now have a NIP for 80mph on the M4, driving at 9.30pm on a Sunday Evening, after driving the same length of Motorway day in day out, at roughly the same 'slow' inner/middle lane speed for years. Then one or two critical emails, and I suddenly have a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution).
Teresa May's big brother is about connecting the dots, to make you suffer, if you speak out.
This shouldn't surprise anyone as the police are so corrupt. The worse are in London, New Scotland Yard. These cockroaches are everywhere. If the public really knew what some of them get up to..
Organized stalking or gang stalking, a covert psychological harassment program used against someone who has become an enemy of individual or government. There are criminals within Scotland Yard at the highest levels who are involved in this crime.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
