2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
3.64 The largest category of errors is identified as ‘inadequate discharge of sections
15/16 duties’. This is a wide category and can mean different things. One example might
be where an analyst had continued to select the communications of an individual based
overseas after the individual was known to have entered the UK. Another might be where
a technical system malfunctioned causing it to select unwanted data for examination. In
these instances the communications had been lawfully intercepted under a section 8(1)
or 8(4) warrant, but the resultant action was a breach of the section 15 safeguards. Where
necessary I have been satisfied that technical system faults have been fixed or analysts
have undertaken further training and supervision to prevent recurrence.
3.65 Although looking at the causes of the errors is of importance in order to take steps
to prevent recurrence, it is equally important to consider the consequences of the errors.
Where errors are caused by a single technical fault, there may be many consequences.
Where communications have been wrongly intercepted, the consequences could be
serious.
3.66 On occasions errors occur which are not the responsibility of the interception
agencies. For example in one instance the interception agency received the telephone
number to be intercepted in good faith from another agency. It subsequently transpired
that the other agency had made a transposition error. In this example the Secretary of
State gave proper consideration to all of the relevant facts in the interception application
and lawfully authorised the warrant – but the telephone number did not in the end relate
to the individual of interest. There has been ambiguity in the past as to whether errors
of this kind should be reported. They do not constitute contraventions of the Act as
the conduct had lawful authority. But I consider that such instances should be reported
where they have resulted in unintentional invasion of privacy.
3.67 We have also come across instances where typographical errors have occurred on
warrantry paperwork, but where no consequence followed because they were identified
and rectified and never acted on. I do not consider that these need to be reported.
But the interception agencies should still take steps to ensure so far as is possible that
mistakes of this kind do not occur, since they could have serious consequences.
3.68 In the majority of instances I was satisfied with the timeliness of the error reports
received by my office. However, I raised concerns with two of the interception agencies
on this point. Some of the more complicated technical errors may understandably take
time to investigate fully. In these cases I agreed that the agencies could send me an initial
notification at the point at which it is clear that an error has occurred and then follow
this up with a full report once the cause of the error has been fully ascertained and the
measures put in place to prevent recurrence. In the more straightforward cases I would
expect to receive a full report straight away and systems have been put in place at the
agencies to ensure that this now happens.
17