The report says that in its use of databases and “other means of collecting, storing and using personal information” the Home Office should “explicitly address” the following questions: In the context of the fight against crime where should the balance between protecting the public and preserving individual liberty lie? How should this balance shift according to the seriousness of the crime? What impact will this have on the individual and on our society as a whole?
It insists upon the importance of individual liberties. “The fight against crime in general does not provide sufficient justification for information-sharing which might have an impact on privacy. It is vital that before information is shared for purposes other than those for which it has been collected those purposes are subjected to the closest scrutiny.”
“Information-sharing must only be carried out in the context of a robust statutory framework which incorporates tests of proportionality and mandates the securing of consent where possible,” the report says.
“The effectiveness of information-sharing should be assessed at the stage at which a new project is proposed, in order to prevent unnecessary sharing and retention of data. We recommend that where the sharing or matching of information held by the Home Office or its agencies is proposed, the Information Commissioner should act as a consultee and mediator on the same footing as the Ministry of Justice.”
Public and private
“Exemptions from the Data Protection Act notwithstanding, in giving consent and choosing services individuals are better informed about how their information is used and shared in the private sector than they are about how it might be used and shared by the Government,” it says.
“We recommend that the Home Office work with the Information Commissioner to raise awareness of how information generated in the private sector-such as details of retail purchases, or information posted on blogs or social networking sites, for example-might be used in the investigation of crime.”
“We welcome the Minister’s reassurance that the Government is not interested in ‘fishing’ for information about individuals,” the report states. “However, we do not underestimate the lure of new technological capabilities and new ways of sharing and matching information from a range of sources, which might appear to offer benefits in the fight against crime.
“The Home Office should exercise a ‘self-denying ordinance’ in relation to its use of technological capabilities and its power to collect personal information.
“We would be particularly concerned by any attempt to use patient data or information held on children for the purposes of predictive profiling for future criminal behaviour rather than child protection: the Home Office must not undertake or sponsor work of this sort.”
