4 ms·

UK accidentally deleted 150k arrest records

12 points by jonplackett 6y ago

chaz6 6y ago
Disappointingly the article does not contain the word "backup" anywhere. I would have expected a journalist to ask if they were able to restore the data from a backup, and if not, why not?
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Yeah, like many newspaper articles these days it's very light on understanding and investigation.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > officials were “working at pace” to recover the 150,000 arrest records Sounds like they're restoring them, presumably from a backup.
d1sxeyes 6y ago
As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken'. If the police cannot be trusted to put basic data protection measures in place (such as backups), perhaps they should not keep biometric data about people that have done nothing wrong[0]? [0]: more accurately, have not been charged with wrongdoing, meaning either there was insufficient evidence, or prosecution was not deemed to be in the public interest.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  They've already been told they have to delete this data and refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keeping-drink-drivers-dna-breached-his-rights-judges-rule https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keepi... In the UK, we have no "poison tree" doctrine so (with limited exceptions) illegally gathering or using evidence doesn't prevent prosecutions. So there is really no incentive NOT to illegally keep data like this. Its also worth noting the UK had a distinction here between illegal (criminal and punishable) and unlawful (not permitted but not a crime either, like say trespassing or taking something that isn't yours accidently). This act is (AFAIK) unlawful. So no police officer can be arrested and personally criminally charged for keeping this data. Its not something you don't have a right to do...
seanhunter 6y ago
Reading between the lines the mistake here seems to have been due to data retention processes which were "overzealous". If you have an encounter with the police and they store your details, but you are never charged with any sort of crime, they are required to delete your details after a certain time has elapsed. The process to prune these details is legally required to remove the data from backups also because the police don't have the right to keep your details on their systems any more. However it seems somehow additional records were subject to the purge which should not have been.
- seanhunter 6y ago
  As an aside, this specific problem seems like something there could be a strong cryptographic solution to. eg rather than just deleting records, they could encrypt them first with a public key where the private half is owned by a third party such as the information commissioner (https://ico.org.uk/ https://ico.org.uk/) and then archive them. If at a later date they find they need them back they request a decryption and give their reasons. If the ICO thinks the reasons are valid (ie the police have the right to have the data and therefore should not have deleted it), then they decrypt, but otherwise the police don't have access to the data. Usage of the private key could be subject to an audited break glass procedure to prevent abuse.

12 points by jonplackett 6y ago

Disappointingly the article does not contain the word "backup" anywhere. I would have expected a journalist to ask if they were able to restore the data from a backup, and if not, why not?

jonplackett 6y ago
Yeah, like many newspaper articles these days it's very light on understanding and investigation.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> officials were “working at pace” to recover the 150,000 arrest records Sounds like they're restoring them, presumably from a backup.

d1sxeyes 6y ago

As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken'. If the police cannot be trusted to put basic data protection measures in place (such as backups), perhaps they should not keep biometric data about people that have done nothing wrong[0]? [0]: more accurately, have not been charged with wrongdoing, meaning either there was insufficient evidence, or prosecution was not deemed to be in the public interest.

LatteLazy 6y ago
They've already been told they have to delete this data and refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keeping-drink-drivers-dna-breached-his-rights-judges-rule https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keepi... In the UK, we have no "poison tree" doctrine so (with limited exceptions) illegally gathering or using evidence doesn't prevent prosecutions. So there is really no incentive NOT to illegally keep data like this. Its also worth noting the UK had a distinction here between illegal (criminal and punishable) and unlawful (not permitted but not a crime either, like say trespassing or taking something that isn't yours accidently). This act is (AFAIK) unlawful. So no police officer can be arrested and personally criminally charged for keeping this data. Its not something you don't have a right to do...

seanhunter 6y ago

Reading between the lines the mistake here seems to have been due to data retention processes which were "overzealous". If you have an encounter with the police and they store your details, but you are never charged with any sort of crime, they are required to delete your details after a certain time has elapsed. The process to prune these details is legally required to remove the data from backups also because the police don't have the right to keep your details on their systems any more. However it seems somehow additional records were subject to the purge which should not have been.

seanhunter 6y ago
As an aside, this specific problem seems like something there could be a strong cryptographic solution to. eg rather than just deleting records, they could encrypt them first with a public key where the private half is owned by a third party such as the information commissioner (https://ico.org.uk/ https://ico.org.uk/) and then archive them. If at a later date they find they need them back they request a decryption and give their reasons. If the ICO thinks the reasons are valid (ie the police have the right to have the data and therefore should not have deleted it), then they decrypt, but otherwise the police don't have access to the data. Usage of the private key could be subject to an audited break glass procedure to prevent abuse.