Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - July 2016
Points of Note
Communications Data
761,702 items of communications data were acquired during 2015. 48% of the
items of communications data were traffic data, 2% service use information and
50% subscriber information.
145 public authorities acquired data in 2015. 93.7% of the applications for
communications data were made by police forces and law enforcement agencies,
5.7% by the intelligence agencies and 0.6% by local authorities and other public
authorities (regulatory bodies with statutory functions to investigate criminal
offences and smaller bodies with niche functions).
In 2015 IOCCO conducted 72 communications data inspections. We scrutinised at
random approximately 15,000 applications and in addition over 117,000 applications
were subject to query based examinations.
366 recommendations emanated from our inspections, an average of 5
recommendations for each public authority.
1199 errors were reported to IOCCO in 2015, an increase of 20% from the previous
year. The main causes for the overall rise are a larger number of incorrect identifiers
being submitted by applicants on their applications or, both applicants and SPoCs
acquiring data over the incorrect date or time period. Once again we highlight that
a significant number of these errors relate to Internet Protocol addresses being
incorrectly resolved to subscribers, which can have serious consequences.
23 serious errors were investigated in 2015 (9 technical system errors and 14 human
errors). The 9 technical system errors resulted in multiple consequences and a large
number of erroneous disclosures (2036). The consequences of the 23 serious errors
were as follows: 17 instances where search warrants were executed at the addresses
of persons unconnected to the investigation and / or persons unconnected to the
investigations arrested, 6 instances where persons unconnected to the investigations
were visited by police, 7 resulted in delayed welfare checks on vulnerable persons
and in the remaining cases there was no significant impact as typically the error was
identified prior to the information being acted upon.
Regrettably IOCCO identified four investigations where data had been acquired
to identify or determine journalistic sources without judicial authorisation. In one
case the Commissioner determined that the conduct was reckless and informed the
affected individuals who subsequently made complaints to the Investigatory Powers
Tribunal (IPT). In a separate case the Commissioner invoked his discretionary power
under Paragraph 6.22 of the Code of Practice. In this case he determined that two
applications were not necessary or proportionate and he informed the individual
who had been adversely affected by the conduct.
www.iocco-uk.info
71