18 Nov
2009
631
Views

WAPI Responds to Comments Made by the ICO's Mr Christopher Graham

Following the disclosure over the T-Mobile Data Breaches, the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham has disclosed his true sentiments about “Private Investigators” as being “really sleazy”.

Christopher Graham, talks to Jon Snow about the millions of personal mobile phone records that have been sold off. 17 Nov 2009

The question therefore arises as whether a person holding such views should be in a position to regulate Privacy.
 
I have written on behalf of WAPI to the ICO asking for a withdrawal of this undeserved and unwarranted slur on the entire Sector, and urging him to become one of the few in authority to demonstrate some “joined-up” thinking.
 
For almost 9 years the PSIA has been in operation, and still the Investigation Sector is not regulated!!  If indeed, we are the sleazy problem vexing this new ICO, surely the simple answer is to expedite the licensing of PI’s – Thereby in one simple swoop, placing a penalty of “loss of livelihood” for those convicted of s. 55 offences.
 
Off course, most of us actually realise that “Blaggers” are not Investigators and will not be applying for a PI License!  They will continue to “blag” for whoever is willing to pay for the results.
 
For the benefit of the ICO a “Blagger” is one who obtains information/data using a pretext.
A Professional Private Investigator is one who lawfully conducts inquiries for clients for a legal purpose.
 
Perhaps in time, it will come to pass that those in Office will accept that Investigators in the main, conduct their inquiries for Victims of Crime or Injustice, and that there needs to be a mechanism whereby in appropriate circumstances, access to Personal Data of Suspects should be made available.
 
Or are we forevermore to live in a Society that has gradually reversed previously normal standards in the criminalisation of the Investigators/Journalists and the Offenders become the Victims!
 
Time to smell the coffee Commissioner, the three primary Professional Associations in the UK have membership standards and codes of ethics, please do not regard us as unsavoury or sleazy! 
 

Ian (D. Withers)

UK/EU Regulation

WAPI - Past Chairman

 

Category: Industry News
Rate:
 
What are these?

Bookmarks

de.lico.us de.lico.us Digg Digg Facebook Facebook Reddit Reddit Stumble Upon Stumble Upon Twitter Twitter
Added By: e-Media on 18th Nov 2009 - 17:27
Last Updated: 19th Nov 2009 - 21:33
Number of Views: 631
Post your comment

Comments

at 10:01 on 14th Jan 2010, Investigator wrote:

Yet another imbecile.  It seems that T-Mobile's problem is as likely to have been an institutional problem (ie sale of customer data) as 'rogue elements'.  He doesn't want to prejudice his case but dismisses the possibility that the problem is systemic within T-Mobile and the way they handle customer data?  Then throws in a comment about private investigators?  Not at all relevant and thankfully the journalist didn't allow for a little feeding frenzy.

Every business has good and bad, the fact is that local authorirteis are the most frequent abusers of the DPA, this is evidenced in the number of succesful sanctions found on the ICO's website.  Are they too, 'sleazy' or can't that be true of a civil servant?

visit website

at 13:31 on 03rd Jan 2010, - Dunstan Fronteras (Dip API) wrote:

We should continue to work with the ICO.

visit website

at 08:52 on 27th Nov 2009, Mr John Edwards wrote:

Whilst we should continue to work with the ICO the comments that were made by an individual in a privliged position such as his, does not bode well for fairness or professional respect of each others organisations. If he expects associations to respect their role in society they should also extend that courtesy to others. What is more dissapointing is the fact that the ICO has seen fit not to even offer a reply to any of the Association that have in recent days contacted them with regard to the allegations.

visit website

at 01:16 on 20th Nov 2009, Neil Sheppard wrote:

I am thoroughly disgusted by the comments made by the ICO which have been made without foundation. The T-Mobile data breach is nothing to do with the investigation sector and no Private Investigators are involved.

Even if this was one of our own there was no need or justification to blacken an entire industry (thought to be 10,000 in number) with the guilt of one.
 
Mr Graham lost the support of an entire industry with his flippant and offensive remarks. Professional Private Investigators commit to the highest standards and ethics whilst conducting investigations for victims of crime and injustice where in the main the system has failed them. We network with like minded professionals and self regulate through professional bodies. If this is not enough "Regulate us" and separate the professionals from the blaggers!
 
The biggest offenders in any data breaches to date have been large corporations, local authorities and let’s not forget the government itself. The Inland Revenue, MoD, DWP, NHS are all past offenders with catastrophic breaches of the DPA. Where was Mr Graham’s venom in regards to these issues?
 
Data Protection is required and rules need to be adhered to and enforced rigidly. I would hate to think that my personal data was thrown out of the back door of some bank or call centre. But picking on the little guys is not on.
 
Mr Graham as the Head of an Investigative authority is obviously not objective enough to hold such office. I look forward to a withdrawal statement and live in hope of an official apology.
visit website

at 18:44 on 19th Nov 2009, - Maria Cooper wrote:

Many professionals within the industry are disturbed by Mr Grahams 'throw away' comment regarding Private Investigators, and rightly so. I recognise that as in all walks of life, there are exceptions, but it has been my experience having amassed over 25 years of professional investigative experience both in the Police Service and private sector, that the majority of my colleagues up and down the nation are experienced professionals in their field, Knowledgeable in regard to the law - both civil and criminal and moral in its application.  All reputable private investigation companies affiliate themselves to the UK professional bodies in order to demonstrate adherence and compliance to the strict codes of ethics by which we run our businesses.

Thank you to the WAPI council for making representation to Mr Graham and requesting on behalf of the industry a public withdrawal  of such a flippant and unwarranted remark.

visit website

at 14:44 on 19th Nov 2009, Jameson wrote:

Quote "Staff at the network operator had developed a sideline selling customer records to brokers who then called up the customers to offer alternative contracts." Quote.

So absolutely nothing to do with Private Investigators?

visit website

at 13:08 on 19th Nov 2009, Ian Harm wrote:

I am impressed with the professional and dignified response from WAPI. Well done Ian. 

at 10:33 on 19th Nov 2009, faithless wrote:

"Off course, most of us actually realise that “Blaggers” are not Investigators, and will not be applying for a PI License"

Sorry, grammar police here.

The subject of the final clause of that sentence '...will not be applying for a PI licence' is not 'blaggers', but 'us'. It therefore reads "Most of us [...] will not be applying for..."

You should have left out the second comma, or added a '...that they...' between 'and' and 'will'

And think of 'advise' and 'advice' to remember that in England, 'license' is a verb and 'licence' is the document.

at 17:44 on 18th Nov 2009, Mr Jorge Salgado-Reyes wrote:

Well done Mr Christopher Graham!  You have just lost the support of an entire industry tonight. A very biased view point.

visit website

at 17:39 on 18th Nov 2009, Chris Seagal wrote:

Mr Graham has certainly ruffled a few feathers within the industry. It would be good to hear an apology.

visit website

Post a Comment

Fields marked with a * must be completed.

Comment:
*