2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Figure 7 – Breakdown of Errors by Cause and Responsible Party
incorrect type of
data
13%
incorrect
communications
address
26%
incorrect
communications
address
9%
Applicant
29%
SPoC
36%
incorrect time
period
14%
Other
6%
other reason
6%
Inner Ring =
Responsible Party
Outer Ring =
Direct Cause of error
DP
13%
insufficient rank
approved
acquistion of data
9%
CSP
16%
incorrect time
period
7%
incorrect
communications
address
7%
incorrect time
period
3%
disclosed excess
data 2%
DP did not approve
aquisition of data
4%
Figure 7 shows that 42% of the errors were caused either by the applicant, SPoC or CSP acquiring
data on the incorrect communications address. This type of human error usually occurs due to
the transposition of digits in telephone numbers or internet protocol (IP) addresses. In the vast
majority of these cases the mistake was realised, the public authority (and CSP if applicable)
reported the error to my team and the data that was acquired wrongly was destroyed as it had
no relevance to the investigation. Unfortunately in two separate cases where a CSP disclosed the
incorrect data, the mistakes were not realised and action was taken by the police forces on the
data received. Regrettably, these errors had very significant consequences for two members of
the public who were wrongly detained / accused of crimes as a result of the errors. I cannot say
more about these two instances at this time as investigations are ongoing. However when such
errors occur it is my responsibility to investigate the circumstances and work with the CSP or
public authority concerned to review their systems and processes to prevent any recurrence.
In these cases the CSP was slow to report the errors and I was not initially satisfied with the
explanations the CSP provided in relation to how the errors occurred, or the measures they put
31