Category: Surveillance

RIPA Part 2 Inspections: Common Criticisms by the OSC

examThe Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) is responsible for overseeing the use of covert surveillance by designated public authorities by carrying out regular inspections. (Appendix E of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner’s Annual Report (2012-13) lists those whom the OSC inspects and how often.) In the UK the inspections check councils’ compliance with Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000(RIPA) (and in Scotland The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 (RIP(S)A)) for use directed surveillance, intrusive surveillance and covert human intelligence sources (CHIS).

As part of our provision of tailored in house training, we have to read OSC inspection reports. The following is a list of common mistakes highlighted by the OSC. They are not attributable to any particular organisation.

FORMS

  • Use of out of date forms
  • No Unique Reference Number (URN)
  • Not amending forms so that only those grounds are present which are available to the public authority e.g. councils – preventing or detecting crime
  • Pre completed forms
  • Use of cut and paste in boxes/repetitive narrative

AUTHORISATION PROCESS

  • Rubber stamping – no real thought given to authorisation
  • Necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion not fully understood/considered by investigators and authorisers
  • Likelihood of obtaining Confidential Information not fully considered
  • Some ‘open source’ internet research is being conducted which may actually meet the criteria of Directed Surveillance and therefore require authorisation
  • Confusion re: reviews and renewals
  • Lack of understanding of when a person is a CHIS
  • Two many Authorising Officers
  • Authorising Officers are not making adequate provision for destruction of product that is collateral intrusion or of no value to the operation
  • Several authorities are pooling resources but then not obtaining authorisations and keeping records in relation to a proper designated authority
  • Confusion about interference with property powers under Police Act 
1997
  • NB councils cannot do this
  • More robust management and quality assurance procedures required 


RECORD KEEPING

  • Central records not compliant with the Code of Practice
  • Inadequate monitoring, recording and audit of surveillance equipment
  • Inadequate handling and storage of surveillance product/evidence 


POLICIES AND PROCEDURE DOCUMENTS

  • Inadequate/no RIPA policy
  • In adequate guidance document (or out of date)
  • No CCTV protocol/procedure
  • OSC may wish to visit your CCTV control room

TRAINING AND AWARENESS

  • Inadequate training
  • Lack of regular training/refresher trainer
  • Inadequate record of those who have been trained
  • OSC may ask to see recent training materials

If you are considering refresher training for RIPA investigators and authorisers, please see our full program of RIPA Courses and our online webinars. We can also deliver tailored in house training at your premises.

Ever since the changes to the council surveillance regime, which came into force on 1st November 2012, the OSC has taken an interest in ensuring councils do not authorise surveillance under RIPA for “minor offences.” In addition they have been keen to ensure that council’s have an agreed protocol and procedure for presenting authorisation applications to the Magistrates’ Courts. Finally where surveillance needs to be done outside the scope of RIPA then a Non RIPA authorisation policy should be implemented and followed.

Do your RIPA documents need revision? Avoid re inventing the wheel! Our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit gives you a standard policy as well as forms (with detailed notes to assist completion) for authorising RIPA and non-RIPA surveillance. Over 200 different organisations have bought this document (available on CD as well).

Use of Social Media in Investigations

canstockphoto10560861All investigators, when tackling rogue traders, fraudsters or errant employees, need to make use of the Internet as an investigatory tool. Unfortunately there is a lack of knowledge of Internet investigation techniques amongst investigators especially those working in the public sector. The Internet can reveal a treasure trove of free information, which can even lead to the perpetrators’ door (literally).

Do you have a smartphone and therefore an on-line account for managing email, contacts and messages? Do you use it for accessing applications such Instagram, Flickr (for storing photographs online) and Facebook?

If these applications are used, without properly controlled account settings, then available on-line (for all to see) is your private information, your photographs and other personal data. Even information that you yourself have not uploaded or stored can be mined for more personal information. You might have had photographs taken by a professional, for example for the sale of a home, or at events or weddings, or even by friends and family. These images are then posted on web sites and/or stored on-line (perhaps on Instagram, and Flickr ) often without your knowledge. The images will retain tagging and geo data used by the photographer to catalogue their albums. This might be your postcode, email address, name, or other identifying information. Someone who knows what to look for and where to look can discover a lot about you!

Worrying! But also very useful if you are investigating an individual for criminal or civil offences (or just disciplinary matters). Here are a few examples where such information was used by investigators to find out about individuals clearly “up to no good.”

Case Study 1 – The Malicious Blogger

A Chief Executive of a public sector organisation received an email containing particularly threatening and abusive language and menacing comments. Enquiries about the routing of the email revealed it had been sent from an Internet café.

Just twenty-five minutes of open source research produced a result. The advanced search facilities within Google, and a couple of search facilities specific to social networking sites, identified the full details of the sender. Step one was to search the email address, which revealed a posting on a blog, which in turn revealed a publicly listed unique user name. This was searched and the user was found on a couple of unpleasant blogs linking with others. This in turn led to another user name which was very close to the individual’s real name. This in turn led to his Facebook account, tagged images, and other unpleasant on-line postings. A few minutes later the home address of the perpetrator together with very current photographs were discovered. He was found to be a professional working for a public authority!

Case Study 2 – The Rogue Employee

An employee was suspected of working on his own business whilst off sick from work. Resource intensive and potentially controversial covert surveillance was one of many options considered. However, from just a mobile number this individual was traced to an EBay account using the EBay advanced search facility. As well as identifying the goods for sale through this business venture, the username for this EBay account was linked to a website with a Twitter account. Tweets by this person revealed the exact times and dates when he was working on his own business. Much of what he was doing was taking place when he was at work. A web of business networking and LinkedIn activity was also unravelled detailing far more than what the investigators had imagined.

These are just a couple of examples of investigations where auditors/investigators benefitted from having a thorough knowledge of online investigation techniques. It doesn’t always work this easily but my new course explains the most effective techniques. I also provide practical guidance on how to capture online evidence to accepted national standards.

Any form of surveillance of individuals raises a lot of legal issues (see Ibrahim Hasan’s recent article on the law of employee surveillance). There are pitfalls especially relating to privacy, Data Protection and RIPA to name a few. This course will also give delegates an opportunity to network with others who face the same challenges.

Steve Morris is an ex police officer and one of our expert RIPA course trainers. Steve’s new E Crime and Social Networking Course is proving very popular amongst auditors and investigators wanting to know how to make best use of the Internet when conducting investigations.

The Law of Employee Surveillance

RIPA4Decreasing public sector budgets and increasingly affordable technology mean that more and more employers are turning to surveillance to catch errant or work shy employees. But this area is a legal minefield. Mistakes can end up with adverse headlines in the media or worse still legal action. In August, West Yorkshire Fire Service was criticized in the papers when a 999 operator, who was on sick leave, found a GPS tracker planted on her car by a private detective hired by her bosses.

A public sector employer wanting to conduct lawful staff surveillance must first ask the question, which legislation applies? If the surveillance involves covert techniques or equipment, it is easy to assume that Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) applies and that the surveillance must be the subject of an written authorisation by a senior officer and, in the case of a local authority employer, Magistrates’ approval. However, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled in the past that not all covert surveillance of employees is regulated by RIPA.

In C v The Police and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (14th November 2006, No: IPT/03/32/H), a former police sergeant (C), having retired in 2001, made a claim for a back injury he sustained after tripping on a carpet in a police station. He was awarded damages and an enhanced pension due to the injuries. In 2002, the police instructed a firm of private detectives to observe C to see if he was doing anything that was inconsistent with his claimed injuries. Video footage showed him mowing the lawn. C sued the police claiming that they had carried out Directed Surveillance under RIPA without an authorisation. The Tribunal first had to decide if it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The case turned on the interpretation of the first limb of the definition of Directed Surveillance i.e. was the surveillance “for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation?”

The Tribunal ruled that this was not the type of surveillance that RIPA was enacted to regulate. It made the distinction between the ordinary functions and the core functions of a public authority:

“The specific core functions and the regulatory powers which go with them are identifiable as distinct from the ordinary functions of public authorities shared by all authorities, such as the employment of staff and the making of contracts. There is no real reason why the performance of the ordinary functions of a public authority should fall within the RIPA regime, which is concerned with the regulation of certain investigatory powers, not with the regulation of employees or of suppliers and service providers.”

The Tribunal also stated that it would not be right to apply RIPA to such surveillance for a number of reasons:

  1. RIPA does not cover all public authorities, and there was no sense in police employee surveillance being conducted on a different legal footing than, for example, the Treasury, which does not have the same surveillance rights under RIPA.
  2. The Tribunal has very restrictive rules about evidence, openness and rights of appeal. The effect of these would lead to unfairness for employees of RIPA authorities when challenging their employers’ surveillance as compared to those who were employed by non RIPA authorities.

This case suggests that, even where employee surveillance is being carried out for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, the question has to be; is it for a core function linked to one of the authority’s regulatory functions? In the local authority context this would include, amongst others, trading standards, environmental heath and licensing. If the surveillance is not being done for one of these purposes it will not be Directed Surveillance and consequently will not be regulated by RIPA.

Of course just because RIPA may not apply, it does not mean that the employer can do what it likes. Whatever type of surveillance is conducted, the right to privacy, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protects employees within the work environment.  This means that the surveillance must be carried out in a manner that is in accordance with the law and is necessary and proportionate. There have been a number of cases where employers have been criticised by the courts for failing to take account of the human rights issues when doing surveillance of employees e.g. Copland v UK (3rd April 2007 ECHR) concerning communications surveillance and Jones v Warwick University ((2003) 3 All ER 760) concerning a claim for personal injury. Compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) will be evidence that the surveillance has also been done in compliance with Article 8.

All employers, be they public or private sector, have to comply with the DPA when doing surveillance, as they will be gathering and using personal information about living individuals. The Information Commissioner has published the Data Protection Employment Practices Code, which sets out rules to be followed when dealing with employees’ personal data.

Part 3 of the code covers all types of employee surveillance from video monitoring and vehicle tracking to email and Internet surveillance. Indeed those public authorities who are doing surveillance of their employees which now, in the light of the above Tribunal case, cannot be authorised under RIPA also have to pay special attention to the code. Whilst the code is not law, it can be taken into account by the Information Commissioner and the courts in deciding whether the DPA has been complied with.

One of the other main recommendations of the code is that senior management should normally authorise any covert surveillance of employees. They should satisfy themselves that there are grounds for suspecting criminal activity or equivalent malpractice. They should carry out an impact assessment and consider whether the surveillance is necessary and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved i.e. the same considerations that public sector employers subject to RIPA would have to consider when doing a RIPA authorisation. This assessment is best done in writing using a “Non-RIPA” surveillance form (Our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit contains such a form).

If covert surveillance of an employee results in his/her dismissal, the matter will usually end up before the Employment Tribunal in the form of unfair dismissal proceedings. Here the Tribunal will also have to consider whether evidence has been gathered fairly and lawfully. In City And County Of Swansea v Gayle UKEAT 0501_12_1604 (16 April 2013) Swansea Council conducted covert video surveillance on the claimant, when he was for good reason suspected of playing squash during work time, whilst claiming payment for being at work at the time.  The surveillance confirmed he was seen at the sports centre on a succession of Thursdays when he should have been at work.

The Employment Tribunal upheld a claim for unfair dismissal (though awarding nil compensation, for contributory conduct) because of the Tribunal’s distaste for the employer’s use of covert surveillance. Its view was that Article 8 (right to privacy) was engaged and broken in doing so. It took account of the council’s lack of awareness of its obligations under the DPA and the Code.

These views were rejected on appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was allowed with a substituted finding that the dismissal was not unfair. The Tribunal did not accept that here there was any breach of Article 8(1) so as to require the Tribunal to consider the requirements of 8(2) at all.  If, however, the Tribunal had done so it would have been bound to consider the legitimate aim which the Council claimed to have.  Here one of two such aims might have been identified.  The first was the prevention of crime, the second the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the “others” here being the employers whose money was at stake and who had contractual rights in agreement with the claimant that he would behave in a way in which as it happened he did not.

This is an interesting case for employers. Dismissals will not necessarily be unfair when covert surveillance is used as part of the dismissal process. Employees acting fraudulently on employer’s time cannot expect their actions to be kept private from the employer. However, employers would be well advised to tread with caution. Following the correct procedures and being mindful of their obligations under the DPA (as well as Human Rights) will inevitably put an employer in a better position.

Employee surveillance may not always engage RIPA. However data protection and human rights laws will always have to be carefully considered. In cases of surveillance of staff e-mail and internet usage Section 4 of RIPA and the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 will also need to be considered. For more on the latter please see our online training course (Email and Internet Monitoring: How to do it lawfully).

Act Now can help you get to grips with this difficult area. Please see our full program of surveillance law courses which can also be customised and delivered at your premises. If you want a quick update try our forthcoming webinars.

Listen to Ibrahim Hasan’s interview on BBC File on Four on Secrecy and Surveillance: of http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bdsyk

The 2013 Surveillance Commissioner Report – Key Points

RIPA22The Chief Surveillance Commissioner published his 2013 annual report (covering the period from 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013) on 18th July 2013. It is important reading for those public authorities who conduct surveillance under Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The report details statistics relating to the use of Part 2 of RIPA by public authorities and information about how the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner (OSC) conducts its oversight role. Non-law enforcement agencies (including councils) authorised Directed Surveillance on 5,827 occasions. This continues a downward trend over the last few years.

The report highlights a number of important issues some of which are listed below:

  • Common errors by RIPA authorities include miscommunication or failure to communicate the details of an authorisation; failure to conduct thorough reviews, renewals or cancellations; ignorance on the part of officers; or poor administration or processes.
  • The Commissioner says that all public authorities have struggled with the use of the Internet for investigations, particularly social networking sites. At paragraph 5.7 he advises caution on conflating the offline word with the online world. There may be cases where RIPA authorisation is required when doing research about a person on the Internet. He goes on to say, “… it is important to bear in mind that it is not always possible to give a definitive answer as to whether a particular activity requires authorisation: facts are infinitely variable. Where there is doubt authorisation is prudent.”  Act Now has developed a course on E-Crime and Social Networking Sites which examines all the relevant RIPA and wider legal issues.
  • Too many tactics requested by investigating officers are unused. Authorising officers and Senior Responsible Officers should monitor whether applicants are lazily requesting tactics out of habit rather than necessity.
  • Too many cancellations provide an insufficient record of surveillance actually conducted and the details of collateral intrusion. Rarely does guidance on the retention or destruction of product go beyond an inadequate reference to policy. It is vital that surveillance product that does not match the objectives stated in the authorisation is not retained on databases.
  • At paragraph 5.5, the Commissioner reiterates his view that RIPA is permissive legislation and there may be occasions where surveillance outside the scope of RIPA may be required. He points to the recent IPT decision in BA and others v Cleveland Police (IPT/11/129/CH). This is in keeping with Ibrahim Hasan’s view as explained on this blog.
  • Where there is an invasion of privacy and RIPA does not apply, due to all conditions not being met, then the Commissioner recommends use of a similar written authorisation mechanism where Article 8 issues (privacy) are considered.
  • The Commissioner also considers the changes, which took effect on  1st November 2012; namely magistrates’ approval for council surveillance and a new six month threshold test for Directed Surveillance.  On the whole they are working well. There were 142 approval requests made to a Magistrate in the reporting period of which only two were rejected.
  • Finally the Commissioner fires a shot across the bows of those authorities who drag their feet in accepting his recommendations. At paragraph 5.18 he says, “I expect the recommendations of my reports to be followed whether or not individual officers agree with them. Continued failure to do so – especially on the ground that current practices have been unchallenged in court proceedings – may result in publication of my guidance or recommendations to a wider audience.”

Now is the time to consider refresher training for RIPA investigators and authorisers. Please see our full program of RIPA Courses which have been revised to take account of all the latest developments. We can also deliver these courses at your premises, tailored to the audience. Finally, if you want to avoid re inventing the wheel, our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit gives you a standard policy as well as forms (with detailed notes to assist completion) for authorising RIPA and non-RIPA surveillance. Over 200 different organisations have bought this document (available on CD as well).

ICO 2013 Conference Review

Roger Bescodpoc2013website.ashxby reviews the recent ICO conference…

I was on my travels last week and on Tuesday (5th May 2013) found myself at the ICO Data Protection Officers’ Conference  in Manchester. Over 800 people present and about 300 ‘waiting outside the door’ as they say. It was, and always is, massively oversubscribed. It is the main event in the ICO calendar and a fantastic opportunity to get a feel for the way the regulators are thinking. Well worth getting on the guest list.

This is the third year I have attended this Conference and once again I found myself pretty much the only representative from the insurance investigation sector. Can you believe that??  Here we are, post Leveson, NOTW and with worrying EU Regulation on privacy coming out of our ears – and only Brownsword Group there from the entire industry. Does that make us ‘anoraks’ or supremely responsible chaps??  Answers on a post card…

I picked up on two main points that I would like to share with you all:

Europe?  You Never Had It So Good…

There are some massive EU reforms on the way in the form of new European Regulation on Data Privacy. By 2016 it’s looking like we are going to be regulated centrally by Brussels on DP. ‘Fine’ you may say, but when you consider the vastly differing attitudes towards Data Protection by the 27 Member States, and that the UK currently has a considerably more liberal attitude than most, it’s time to look at what might be coming our way.  The explosion in social media is being blamed for the need for tougher regulations – an observation difficult to argue with.

You may remember I highlighted last year that current proposals in Brussels suggest that personal data can only be shared if it falls into one of the new proposed exemptions. Sharing of data by insurers for the purposes of fraud prevention is NOT currently listed amongst the exemptions. This seems to be a glaring omission and now evidently an oversight.  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Financial Services Authority (FSA), amongst others, have been lobbying hard on this very point and seem to have now made some headway. The issue is currently now under review by no less that 5 COMMITTEES in Brussels, all presumably deliberating on what has to be the most obvious decision they will ever have to make – but remember – this is the EU Parliament we are talking about!

During the mass Q&A in the afternoon, Assistant Commissioner David Smith answered a question put by a delegate in a grey suit and Salford accent, on the very point. He admitted that there were several points within the current EU proposals with which the ICO had issues and that this was a typical example. He went on to say that he felt confident that data sharing would always be justified if it was being done for the purposes of the ‘legitimate interests’ and for the ‘prevention and detection of crime’ and that he had not seen anything in the new proposals that changed that.

So, on the face of it, good news but it really is worth keeping an eye on the EU proposals. Wouldn’t we all feel happier if the insurance fraud world was specifically recognised by way of an exemption?

And what does the EU think of secret filming? If the UK were forced to adopt even some of the tough regulations on covert surveillance that exist across much of mainland Europe we would see the biggest upheaval in recent history in our sector. I detected an insatiable appetite from the regulators on the issue of ‘consent’ to processing. The nightmare scenario of having to say to a surveillance subject,  “Hi Mr Smith, is it OK if I film you next Tuesday in relation to your claim?” may not be as farcical as it seems. I kid you not!

I also heard one opinion from a senior ICO official that he favoured following the RIPA example, that of seeking Magistrates’ approval if you wish to put somebody under surveillance in non Public Authority scenarios…you have been warned! (Certainly some form of written authorisation for non-RIPA surveillance is favoured by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and others – Ed)

‘Unmanned’ Surveillance – Too Risky??

There were two excellent breakout sessions at the conference dealing specifically with surveillance.  The way covert video evidence was captured, and in particular the justification for filming individuals, was discussed at length. The point was made most emphatically by the ICO officials that they would only condone the covert processing of personal data (i.e. filming) if it was evidently targeted upon the data subject, and of course that the intrusion could be justified.

They then made the further point that such covert data processing must be discriminate and that every attempt must be made to avoid the inadvertent capture of footage of ‘un-connected’ individuals. They went on to say that whilst some ‘collateral intrusion’ was inevitable, the installation of static unmanned covert cameras, vehicle based or otherwise, was absolutely  ‘unfair and excessive processing’ and breached basic DPA principles.

I know that some surveillance companies out there openly recommend and market such tactics – suffice to say it is not a route The Brownsword Group will be going down. The thought of maybe two dozen ‘friends and neighbours’ of a legitimate surveillance target bringing privacy actions against our client is a risk we will not be taking – and that’s before the ICO themselves come down like a ton of bricks.

And Finally – Something Else……..The FSA and a ‘Thematic Review’ of the Use Of Private Investigators

I can advise that the FSA Conduct Business Unit have embarked upon what they are calling a ‘Thematic Review’.   They are “seeking information from  firms about the controls, oversight and due diligence procedures operated by insurance companies regarding the use of private investigators.”

I understand that specific attention is being paid to TCF, the payment of any inducements or incentives, the frequency and success of investigator involvement and also whether the 2007 ABI Guidelines are being adhered to. It is not surveillance specific.

Insurers can expect a visit in the coming months. Brownsword Group have written to the FSA offering help, assistance and guidance in the production of the review, hopefully providing a view from the ethical  investigator’s side of the fence.

It is likely that at this stage the FSA will have little first hand knowledge of the vital working relationships that exist between Insurers and investigators. This, and in the light of current suspicious attitudes from certain regulators towards the investigation sector, may suggest that a degree of education may be necessary from insurers and investigators alike.

Hopefully, in the fullness of time, the FSA will interact with us on this and we will be able to explain the value of the investigators support role to the insurance sector.

I hope you found the above of interest, comments and questions welcomed.

Roger J Bescoby is Director of Strategic Development at the Brownsword Group. Visit www.brownsword.com & www.talk-safe.co.uk

Data Protection Update workshop – Analysis of the latest DPA cases, developments and news from the ICO. Our next workshops are in Manchester on the 28th May and in London on the 31st May.

Trainer under Surveillance! – RIPA required or even obtainable?

CCTV

About 5pm I arrive at a small hotel ready to deliver training the next day. There is no car park at the hotel so I park on the large pay and display opposite. I check the charges, and buy the minimum – one hour, while I go into the hotel to check-in and see about parking for the night. As I buy the ticket from the machine I hear the CCTV camera above as it moves like something from War of the Worlds, scanning the car park.

The receptionist is very helpful, and asks if I have parked on the pay and display car park. She goes on to say that unfortunately there is no car park at the hotel, but 6pm until 8am is only £2.50 pay and display. But beware, she says, you must be sure to have moved your car before 8am or paid more for the day rate, since during the night a council employee drives around this and other similar car parks, checking parking tickets displayed and recording vehicle registration numbers and the make and model, and exactly where they are parked. Then, during the morning the CCTV cameras are manned and used to check if each car has moved or if anyone has bought a day ticket. If not, a fine is posted to the address of the registered keeper. She knew this because of reports from previous customers who had been caught out by only a few minutes.

What do you think about this type of activity? Good use of resources? Is it directed surveillance that would require a RIPA if it met the recently introduced crime threshold. – Small wonder some generally law abiding citizens are even opposed to overt surveillance when we hear the purpose it is adapted to pursue

Don’t want the police and other public protection services to watch you because they care!

As I get older I make Victor Meldrew seem like a party animal. I object to anyone knowing anything about me, and I get very aggressive when I realise someone or some organisation who I have never communicated with knows something about me.

I hear lots of people ranting about the police or others that protect us from harm, breaching our right to privacy as they try to counter ever-more devious and resourceful individuals who would do us harm or cause us some loss. I deliver open source internet courses, and delegates learn how to find what others put about themselves or their family and friends on Facebook, or organisations and blogs and forums that provide contact and other information about those who contribute. This is scary enough for delegates who attend the courses and realise how vulnerable they are by virtue of what is posted publicly on the internet or uploaded in pictures they display to all and sundry.

But there is a far more sinister threat to our right to privacy than these public web pages and the on-line hackers and scammers. Every click, every place visited, and everything we do is recorded, analysed, and disseminated between the internet service providers, search engines such as Google, and other interested parties. This data is sold and re-sold, and used and re-used. Each of us on the internet is generating data and therefore income for businesses monitoring our activity for financial gain, and targeting our ‘type’ for some particular purpose.

Add to this the technical vulnerabilities that no one seems bothered to address. The ‘savvy’ users work hard on ensuring their privacy settings on social networking sites such as Facebook only ensure those allowed can see their private information, and details of friends and family etc. Then they use their device on public WiFi networks drinking coffee or eating a burger, smug that their accounts are actively communicating with others but they are too clever to let fraudsters see their information. However, there is at least one freely available add-on that can be downloaded legitimately, and the user can connect to the same coffee or burger shop WiFi network, and using the add-on, identify every single user account on devices connected to the WiFi network, and then focus on a particular account and see as much as the account user can – username, private messages – everything public and hidden by privacy settings. So as we walk blindly into a surveillance society with our data available to so many, either through the internet, or our own activity, or the techniques and equipment, surely, supported by checks and balances, public protection bodies should be allowed to at least catch up with the rest!

Come along to one of the internet research courses and see just what information is available and how to find it. And discuss these issues and many others with Steve Morris the trainer.

This article was written by Steve Morris who was formerly a detective with the West Midlands Police Force. Steve is now a full time trainer in relation to various law enforcement and investigation subjects to the public and private sector.

RIPA, CHIS and the IPT

A recent legal case about undercover police officers’ activities whilst investigating protest groups, has raised the importance of RIPA forms being completed correctly and care being taken when authorising them.

Ten women have launched  a legal action claiming they were tricked into forming “deeply personal” relationships with undercover police officers acting as a Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) under Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The case is the first civil action to be brought before a court.

Three of the women referred to in court had intimate relationships with Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years living as an environmental campaigner. Kennedy’s deployment was made public last year after activists worked out he was a police spy.

Lawyers for the police are currently applying to have the case moved from the High Court to “a secret Tribunal”. Normally cases involving a breach of RIPA are heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). Most cases heard by the Tribunal are in private and not open to the media. Very few judgements are published. Most cases are about conduct by, or on behalf of, the Intelligence Services (MI5, MI6and GCHQ). The Tribunal has the power to award damages to complainants and to quash or cancel any authorisation to do the surveillance.

Not surprisingly, the IPT is the forum of choice for the police in this case. According to a report in The Guardian:

“Monica Carrs Frisk QC, representing the police, said their argument was not about denying the women remedy, but determining the correct forum for determining their claims.The police argue the case should be heard in the investigatory powers tribunal, as it was set up specifically to consider allegations of unjustifiable surveillance by the state.They also argue they may be unable defend the case because they have a long-established policy of neither confirming nor denying the identity of undercover police officers.”

When the Kennedy case came to light, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) conducted a report into the circumstances. It concluded that, whilst undercover officers deployed into protest communities gathered intelligence which enabled the police to prevent acts of serious violence, there was serious intrusion into the lives of others, and this risk needs to be better managed in the future.

More will come about these cases especially if (as is likely) the civil case remains in the High Court. The circumstances shows the importance of all public authorities, not just the police, considering the applicability of Part 2 of RIPA , especially the CHIS provisions, very carefully when engaging staff to “go undercover”. In addition to the usual considerations of necessity and proportionality, the CHIS authorisation form  requires a risk assessment to be done, together with a need to have a separate CHIS Handler and a Controller. Detailed records also need to be kept in accordance with the RIPA (Source Records) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2725). If these roles were carried out correctly then abuses of RIPA, as in this case, would be very rare.

Of course local authorities are very infrequent users of the CHIS process (and they certainly do not authorise CHIS operations involving sleeping with the targets!). Any potential for abuse has been minimised even further by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (sections 37 and 38) which came into force on 1st November 2012. This changes the procedure for the authorisation of local authority surveillance under RIPA. From 1st November, local authorities have been required to obtain the approval of a Magistrate for the use of any one of the three covert investigatory techniques available to them under RIPA namely Directed Surveillance, the deployment of a Covert Human Intelligence Source and accessing communications data. On 5th November, Gateshead Council received (what could be) the first Magistrates’ approval.

The case of Mark Kennedy (and others) does beg the question; Is it time the police were required to seek judicial approval for surveillance under RIPA? Should we even stop there? What about surveillance abuses by the press which have come to light as a result of the Leveson Inquiry? Is it time to RIPA it up and start again?

Act Now can help you prepare for the new RIPA process. We have an update  course in December in London. If you would like advice on what needs to be done or customised in house training, please get in touch.

Finally all RIPA authorities need to revise their guidance and policy documents. See our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit.

First Magistrates’ Approval of RIPA Surveillance

Gateshead Council MAY HAVE become the first local authority in the country to successfully obtain Magistrates’ approval for covert surveillance under new laws which came into force on 1st November 2012.

Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (sections 37 and 38) changes the procedure for the authorisation of local authority surveillance under the Regulation for Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). From 1st November, local authorities have been required to obtain the approval of a Magistrate for the use of any one of the three covert investigatory techniques available to them under RIPA namely Directed Surveillance, the deployment of a Covert Human Intelligence Source and accessing communications data.

The Home Office has now published its RIPA Magistrates’ Approval Guidance both for local authorities and the Magistrates’ Court. However until recently, no council had reported a successful application to the Magistrates. We believe, Gateshead Council is the first to do so.

Colin Howey, Senior Trading Standards Officer, explains what they did:

“Like most authorities we were a bit anxious about the new RIPA regime. Whilst we wanted to continue to use covert surveillance techniques in a necessary and proportionate manner, we were concerned about the cost and resource implications of the new Magistrates’ approval process.

Following a full day training workshop we were more confident about what was required. But the new process was still untested.

On 5th November though we obtained what may well be the country’s first judicial approval of a RIPA authorisation. Gateshead Magistrates’ Court approved our use of Directed Surveillance to investigate some serious trading standards offences.

We carefully followed the procedure as set out in the Home Office RIPA Magistrates’ Approval Guidance.  We were also careful to ensure the surveillance was necessary on the amended grounds set out in The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) (Amendment) Order 2012, SI 2012/1500  which also came into force on 1 November 2012. This makes Directed subject to a new Serious Crime Test.

Once we obtained the internal authorisation in the usual way we contacted the Gateshead Magistrates’ Court to arrange a hearing.  They asked us to e mail through the original RIPA authorisation form as well as the completed judicial application/order form.

The hearing was attended by the investigating officer and the Council Solicitor. The court was also aware that it was the first RIPA application it had received so a District judge heard the application advised by the Clerk of the Court.  The hearing was in private. The judge considered the RIPA authorisation and the judicial application/order form.  He asked one or two relevant questions to satisfy himself that the surveillance was necessary and proportionate and then signed the judicial order form

The whole thing was relatively straightforward. It only took the judge fifteen minutes to consider and approve the application.

My tips for those who need to make a similar application are:

1. Train your staff – All investigators and authorising officers need to know about the new process.  Those who will be attending court need to be trained in completing the new judicial application/order form.

2. Designate staff who will be attending the Magistrates Court -This is done under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972.  It is worth giving staff a letter of designation to take to the court when making the application.

3.  Contact your local Magistrates Court now to discuss how they will deal with RIPA applications. Like ours they may want documents e mailed to them beforehand. This will also save time on the day.”

Our thanks to Colin Howey and the Regulatory Services Team at Gateshead Council for this fascinating insight. The training provided to Gateshead Council was conducted by Ibrahim Hasan, of Act Now Training.

Did your council achieve a RIPA approval before Gateshead? Use the comment field to let us know.

Act Now can help you prepare for the new RIPA process. We have an update  course in December in London. If you would like advice on what needs to be done or customised in house training, please get in touch.

Finally all RIPA authorities need to revise their guidance and policy documents. See our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit.

RIPA Policy and Procedure Toolkit (November 2012)

Major changes to the local authority surveillance regime (under RIPA) come into force this today.

  • Local authorities will need to obtain Magistrates’ approval for all surveillance done under RIPA.
  • Directed Surveillance will be subject to a new serious crime test

For detailed discussion on the changes please see our blog:

http://actnowtraining.blog/2012/10/17/1st-november-d-day-for-council-surveillance/

Now is the time to revise your RIPA polices and procedures and make your staff aware of the new rules. Ibrahim Hasan, one of the UK’s leading writers and trainers on public sector surveillance, has developed a RIPA procedures and guidance toolkit to assist you. Why reinvent the wheel?

The toolkit includes an updated version of our previous RIPA Forms Guidance document, which was bought by over one hundred different organisations. In addition there are detailed guidance notes on deciding when surveillance is caught by RIPA, how to authorise it and what to do about surveillance which is not regulated by RIPA. The toolkit is written in straight forward language (avoiding legal jargon) and includes flowcharts to assist understanding. For more information click on the link below:

http://www.actnow.org.uk/content/116

There is a 20% discount for those who bought the previous RIPA Forms Guidance (now updated and included in this toolkit.)

1st November: D-Day for Council Surveillance

1st of November 2012 will see big changes in the way local authorities carry out surveillance under Regulation fo Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA):

1. Magistrates’ Approval for all Surveillance

Sections 37 and 38 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 amends RIPA so as to require local authorities to obtain the approval of a Magistrate for the use of any one of the three covert investigatory techniques available to them under RIPA; namely Directed Surveillance, the deployment of a Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) and accessing communications data. Click on the links below for more

Details of the new legal provisions

How to apply for Magistrates’ approval

RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit

2. New Serious Crime Test for Directed Surveillance

From 1st November 2012, local authority Authorising Officers may not authorise Directed Surveillance unless it is for the purpose of preventing or detecting a criminal offence which punishable by a maximum term of at least 6 months of imprisonment (subject to exceptions).

Details of the new test

Will councils still be able to do surveillance for “minor offences”?

Read my view here

How Act Now Can Help

1. New procedures and guidance will have to be issued – see our RIPA Policy and Procedures Toolkit

2. Officers will need to be made aware of the new procedures. See our training courses. If you would like customised in house training, please get in touch.