156
Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Annual Report 2019
Error Investigation 8
Public Authority
Human or Technical:
Technical
Classification:
Misinterpretation of data (Billing Address)
Data Acquired:
Subscriber information relating to an Internet Protocol Address
Resolution (IPAR)
Description:
A public authority was investigating the uploading and sharing of
indecent images of children (IIOC). The officer/SPoC identified four
relevant IP addresses used by the suspect during upload and sought
their resolution into customer details. After authorisation, the
applicant received the same customer details against each of four
IP addresses submitted.
An intelligence package was sent to another public authority for
immediate action to safeguard any children involved. Officers attended
the address and found no child at the house. The sole occupant was
arrested and all internet-enabled devices were seized by the police.
However, enquiries later that morning established the public authority
had received the billing address not the installation address where the
activity had taken place. The result provided by the TO gave no indication
the name and address was that of the bill payer and not the customer.
Consequence:
The IPC made a determination in accordance with Section 231 IPA
2016. The individual was advised of his right to refer the matter to
the IPT.
Error Investigation 9
Telecommunications Operator (TO)
Human or Technical:
Human (Disclosure Officer)
Classification:
Incorrect Data
Data Acquired:
Subscriber information relating to a telephone number
Description:
A public authority was investigating conspiracy to supply Class A Drugs.
A request for the subscriber of a telephone number at a stated date
was submitted to a TO. The result included a name and email contact
address. Officers sought to call and email the named individual to
arrange a visit. The person’s response upon contact led officers to
suspect an error. The SPoC contacted the TO and a check revealed they
had provided the current subscriber and not the subscriber for the
period requested.
Consequence:
Contact was made (five times) with a person unconnected to the
investigation.
There was no determination by the IPC, as the effect on those visited
was assessed not to have caused significant prejudice or harm.