NCJ Number
91437
Journal
Journal of Law and Society Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (Summer 1983) Pages: 109-117
Date Published
1983
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Data protection legislation cannot have any restrictive effect on British police using their automated vehicle, name checking, and criminal history systems which, when used with inadequate controls, represent penetration of the community at best or collection of low level gossip at worst.
Abstract
The police definition of criminal information includes criminal records, crime reporting, and intelligence and does not distinguish between verifiable and speculative information. This random gathering of information is justified by police policy to predict and prevent crime. The Lindop Committee on Data Protection received no police cooperation when it tried to study problems of criminal intelligence systems, particularly the Free Text Retrieval program used in the Metropolitan 'C' Division computer. The Committee warned that such systems present problems of definition and control, cautioned against the linkage of police computers to support criminal intelligence applications, and recommended that policy decisions about computerized police handling of personal information not be taken in secret. Many police agencies are obtaining information systems that are name oriented. Consequently, they are likely to discriminate by focusing more attention on persons who have more information stored on the computer than on those about whom little is known. The Data Protection Bill offers varying degrees of exemptions to record and data collections held by central and local governments and gives important papers to the Secretary of State in the Home Office in dealing with sensitive information. Thus, control over policy choices regarding police use and collection of information will not come from laws, but by having a police force accountable to the society they police. The article includes 22 footnotes.