126
IPCO Annual Report 2018
Error Investigation 6
Police Force
Human or Technical:
Human (Applicant/Special Point of Contact, SPoC)
Classification:
Misinterpretation of data (Billing Address)
Data Acquired:
Subscriber information relating to an Internet Protocol Address Resolution
Description:
Police officers investigating the upload and sharing of indecent images
of children identified three internet addresses used by the suspect
and submitted an application seeking the customer details associated
to these identifiers by the internet service provider. The application
was authorised and data identifying the same customer address was
received against all three transactions. Police officers attended the
address and seized all internet enabled equipment but a subsequent
forensic examination found nothing untoward. It transpired the data
returned by the service provider related to the billing address only,
and officers incorrectly assumed this was the installation address from
where the internet service used would have been accessed.
Consequence:
The IPC decided that this error amounted to serious error (within the
meaning of section 231 IPA). Accordingly, IPCO notified the affected
person of the fact of the serious error and of that person’s right to
apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Error Investigation 7
Police Force
Human or Technical:
Human (Special Point of Contact, SPoC)
Classification:
Incorrect time conversion
Data Acquired:
Subscriber information relating to an Internet Protocol Address
Resolution
Description:
Police officers investigating the upload and sharing of indecent images
of children over a public WIFI service applied to obtain communication
data that would assist to identify the offender. As the ability to acquire
public WIFI data was a relatively new service, confusion arose when
trying to determine the relevant time zone. The application was
submitted in Greenwich Mean Time, when it should have been in
British Summer Time, meaning the subsequent result was out by one
hour. This led to police executing a warrant at the home of an innocent
family. A re-examination of all similar service requests identified a
second case where, although a warrant was not executed, all internet
enabled devices were seized.
Consequence:
The IPC decided that this error amounted to serious error (within the
meaning of section 231 IPA). Accordingly, IPCO notified the affected
person of the fact of the serious error and of that person’s right to
apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.