That's what surprised me. Surely there's a back up disk of data; unless there are GDPR reasons to permanently delete data.No doubt the first thing on her 'daily tasks' list is 'do backup for crims'' database'.
Never to be seen again.I think she's sat on them and they have vanished inside her massive ar*e.
Words to that effect were said on R4 this morning, but it looks far more serious.The article I saw said that they weren’t criminals...
“It said no records of criminals or dangerous persons had been deleted, and that the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken”
still a huge problem as no doubt they were suspects in crimes and further evidence might have proven them to be criminals.
As mentioned can’t believe they can’t get a back up - surely they must be able to.
It looks like they have not yet defined the size of the problem themselves. I’ve read different reports about this “weeding vide” one stating it was put in at the beginning of the week others stating it had been in much longer. I’d guess at longer which would explain why they can’t just rely upon a back up to bring the records back.Words to that effect were said on R4 this morning, but it looks far more serious.
Link
The DNA database is connected to the PNC and has also been hit, the police chief’s letter reveals. It says: “Approximately 26,000 DNA records corresponding to 21,710 subjects have potentially been deleted in error, including records that have previously been marked for indefinite retention following conviction of serious offences.”
They said two new things (for me) this morning. This problem has been going on since November. The reason for (normal) removal of records is for legal requirements.It looks like they have not yet defined the size of the problem themselves. I’ve read different reports about this “weeding vide” one stating it was put in at the beginning of the week others stating it had been in much longer. I’d guess at longer which would explain why they can’t just rely upon a back up to bring the records back.
lit did get me thinking about gdpr though- if you have interviewed/arrested someone but there is no evidence to convict - how long legally could you keep records of that? I’m guessing the rules are slightly different in the justice system.? Any gdpr experts on here?
Bit more complicated than just gdpr, different rules apply for example where processing takes place for law enforcement purposes (such as preventing or detecting crime) the GDPR does not apply, and instead the ‘Law Enforcement Directive’ (LED) covers these situations, the rules for which are found mainly in Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018It looks like they have not yet defined the size of the problem themselves. I’ve read different reports about this “weeding vide” one stating it was put in at the beginning of the week others stating it had been in much longer. I’d guess at longer which would explain why they can’t just rely upon a back up to bring the records back.
lit did get me thinking about gdpr though- if you have interviewed/arrested someone but there is no evidence to convict - how long legally could you keep records of that? I’m guessing the rules are slightly different in the justice system.? Any gdpr experts on here?
They've also had to delete 40,000 due to leaving the EU. Clearly safer on our own...jokers.Bit more complicated than just gdpr, different rules apply for example where processing takes place for law enforcement purposes (such as preventing or detecting crime) the GDPR does not apply, and instead the ‘Law Enforcement Directive’ (LED) covers these situations, the rules for which are found mainly in Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018
This is correct Artie, but the directive (as well as GDPR) say that data can be retained if it is still being used. In crime detection the data always has a use so can be retained indefinately.Bit more complicated than just gdpr, different rules apply for example where processing takes place for law enforcement purposes (such as preventing or detecting crime) the GDPR does not apply, and instead the ‘Law Enforcement Directive’ (LED) covers these situations, the rules for which are found mainly in Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018
I thought there would be additional rules especially around criminal justice.Bit more complicated than just gdpr, different rules apply for example where processing takes place for law enforcement purposes (such as preventing or detecting crime) the GDPR does not apply, and instead the ‘Law Enforcement Directive’ (LED) covers these situations, the rules for which are found mainly in Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018