It's to late, they have provided evidence to the general public of there disregard towards data protection.
4 posts • joined 29 Mar 2017
Government are recording all kinds of data, such as the fact that innocent people have been victims of crime.
They then link your name to the criminals file as an alias once it is identified they have used your name and date of birth.
At this stage the victim is treated with suspicion and prejudgement, DBS suggest this is because you could be avoiding the checking g system. But they denied that they can be held accountable due to acting in accordance with the law.
The police suggest they need to record in this manner for the purpose of prevent and detect. They record markers to alert users details have been used.
ICO suggest the law does not require them to carry out assessments, regardless of section 42 request.
Home office suggest that police are responsible.
1975 exemptions orders have been judged as ultra virus.
But police act part V section 113a says that secretary of state for the home dept will disclose all "prescribed details" if a name and date of birth is recorded.
It is also strange that when former secretary of state for home dept unlawfully discloses sensitive data and presents it to an employer of an innocent individual which results in damage. The ICO suggest that section 42, law does not require them to carry out an assessment in every case.
They then choose to allow inaccurate data recorded against that innocent individual to remain in place and do nothing, regardless of users not being able to identify it does not belong to that data subject.