2012 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Approximately 80% of the 979 errors were attributable to public authorities and 20% to
CSPs. This percentage has remained static. This year my office has again collated management
information in relation to the causes of the errors and as a result I am able to provide the same
level of detail in this area.
Figure 10 – Breakdown of Errors by Cause and Responsible Party
incorrect type
of data
7%
incorrect
communications
address
24%
incorrect
communications
address
15%
Applicant
26%
incorrect
time period
2%
SPoC
47%
incorrect time
period
25%
DP
5%
CSP other
causes 2%
CSP
20%
CSP technical
fault 4%.
Other
2%
incorrect time
period 3%
Inner Ring =
Responsible Party
Outer Ring =
Direct Cause of error
disclosed excess
data 4%
other reason
2%
incorrect
communications
address
7%
DP did not approve
aquisition of data
5%
Figure 10 shows that 46% of the errors were caused either by the applicant, SPoC or CSP
acquiring data on the incorrect communications address (an increase of 4 percentage points on
2011). 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. Regretfully in six separate cases this year, the mistake
was not realised and action was taken by the police forces / law enforcement agencies on the
29