Attempts to intimidate people by gathering information

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing regarding your attempts to intimidate people at the
climate camp (and discourage others from attending) by demanding
personal information from them with menaces.

It is widely reported that you are demanding people's names. There
is no legal provision for doing so under the various bits of
outrageous "stop and search" legislation. My first question is,
what legislation do you think allows this gathering of data?

My second question is, please list precisely any other bits of
information you are trying to force out of people who are simply
going about their business and what the legal "justification" for
each additional piece of information is?

My third question is, what is your policy if people refuse to
accede to your Stasi style demands? Is the film at
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl...
typical of your response to those who don't like your Stasi
approach? Are you proud of these actions? Will you tell your
children how "brave" you were attacking these fine upstanding
citizens and attempting to prevent them discussing the most
pressing problem we face today?

My fourth question is, what are you doing with this data? Note that
generic waffle answers will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

My fifth question is, is this information being stored on a
database? If so for what reason? Note that generic waffle answers
will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

My sixth question is, for how long is the data stored (in any form,
paper or electronic)?

My last question is, how is the data destroyed (again in any form)?

Seven simple questions. If you have nothing to hide then you will
have no trouble answering these questions rapidly.

Please note that "replies" which involve attachments in proprietary
file formats are not acceptable. A reply which is not in plain text
format will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

Yours faithfully,

David Hansen

Dear Lorraine,

Given the extensive lawbreaking by Kent Police at the Climate Camp
it comes as no surprise to me that Kent Police are also incapable
of obeying another law. Your response is now illegally late.

I refer you to
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukp...

"Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply
with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the
twentieth working day following the date of receipt."

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen

Dear Nigel,

It is now a week and a half since my last message and your holding
reply. However, your criminal (in)activities continue. No-doubt,
like any other gang of criminals, Kent Police believe that the law
does not apply to them.

You claimed that this information would be provided, "as soon as
possible". What is your definition of this term?

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen

Dear Nigel,

In response to this FOI enquiry you posted a response in
<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...>

In order not to conflate the two I have reproduced the whole your
response regarding this enquiry here, the right place for a reply
on this subject. I will shortly be making a few more enquiries in
response to your response.

Begin blockquote

Your second e-mail, our reference 6159-2008, asks the following,
which I will refer to as question 2:

2) a) It is widely reported that you are demanding people's names.
There is no legal provision for doing so under the various bits of
outrageous "stop and search" legislation. My first question is,
what
legislation do you think allows this gathering of data?

b) My second question is, please list precisely any other bits of
information you are trying to force out of people who are simply
going about their business and what the legal "justification" for
each additional piece of information is?

c) My third question is, what is your policy if people refuse to
accede to your Stasi style demands? Is the film at
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl...
typical of your response to those who don't like your Stasi
approach? Are you proud of these actions? Will you tell your
children how "brave" you were attacking these fine upstanding
citizens and attempting to
prevent them discussing the most pressing problem we face today?

Again, questions 2 a), b) and c) ask for comment rather than
specific information, and so once again I must refer you to our
website, and to earlier paragraphs in this letter. However, I will
include here that in the course of their duties officers are
entitled to speak to any member of the public, and in doing so may
ask for a person’s name and other information that may account for
their movements. That person does have the right not to provide
this information, although this may, in some circumstances, provide
grounds to the officer for further enquiries,
such as a search under the provisions of section 1 of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. More information about PACE
can be found on the Home Office website at the link below.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio...

d) My fourth question is, what are you doing with this data? Note
that generic waffle answers will be deemed to be a refusal to
answer.

e) My fifth question is, is this information being stored on a
database? If so for what reason? Note that generic waffle answers
will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

f) My sixth question is, for how long is the data stored (in any
form, paper or electronic)? My last question is, how is the data
destroyed (again in any form)?

g) My last question is, how is the data destroyed (again in any
form)?

Questions d-g do qualify as questions regarding information that
Kent Police may hold. However, you ask what is being done with data
in general and so I can only provide a general answer.

The Statutory Code of Practice for the Management of Police
Information (MoPI) 2005 provides a legal basis for the processing
of information by the police for policing purposes, which it
defines as follows:

(a) protecting life and property;
(b) preserving order;
(c) preventing the commission of offences;
(d) bringing offenders to justice;
(e) any duty or responsibility of the police arising from common or
statute law.

The definition of ‘processing’ in the Data Protection Act 1998
includes: obtaining, recording, using and disclosing.

Kent Police Policy M17 (Searching of persons, Vehicles and Road
Checks) sets out the force policy regarding searching members of
the public. This includes that all details of such interactions
with the public
search must be recorded on PACE Section 1 form 1800. Section 14.1
of the policy states:

“Officers will submit completed forms to their supervisor who will
sign them as having been checked for accuracy, completion and that
the use of any power was appropriate.”

Incorrect forms are returned to the relevant officer for correction
and re-submission. The full policy can be found on our website.

Forms are then submitted to the Area Intelligence Unit, where the
content of the forms is then recorded upon the Kent Police Stop and
Search database. The information upon this database provides an
audit
trail in terms of the justification for the search and is then
available to officers for general policing purposes and to the
Force for further and future intelligence analysis where
appropriate. Records held on the database are automatically weeded
after seven years.

With particular regard to the PACE S1 forms collected during
Operation Oasis, these have been separately collected for
assessment. Any form that does not meet the assessment criteria for
the Stop and Search Database in terms of the information’s
completeness, accuracy etc will not be recorded upon the system.

Thank you for your interest in Kent Police. A sheet, which
summarised your rights, was enclosed with the acknowledgement sent
to you and as suggested therein, should you have any further issues
concerning this matter, please contact me quoting the reference
number shown above.

End blockquote

Dear Nigel,

I have taken an extract of your response, those bits which can
quickly be replied to. That does not mean that I am finished with
the rest of your response.

In your response to my enquiry you deliberately refuse to answer
some questions, by falsely asserting that they "ask for comment
rather than specific information".

I request an internal review of your refusal to answer these
questions.

"2) a) It is widely reported that you are demanding people's names.
There is no legal provision for doing so under the various bits of
outrageous "stop and search" legislation. My first question is,
what legislation do you think allows this gathering of data?"

That is not asking for a comment, it is asking for specific
information. If this information is available on your web site then
please provide a link to *the relevant pages*.

"b) My second question is, please list precisely any other bits of
information you are trying to force out of people who are simply
going about their business and what the legal "justification" for
each additional piece of information is?"

That is not asking for a comment, it is asking for specific
information. If this information is available on your web site then
please provide a link to *the relevant pages*.

"c) My third question is, what is your policy if people refuse to
accede to your Stasi style demands? Is the film at
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl... typical of your
response to those who don't like your Stasi approach? Are you proud
of these actions? Will you tell your children how "brave" you were
attacking these fine upstanding citizens and attempting to prevent
them discussing the most pressing problem we face today?"

That is not asking for a comment, it is asking for specific
information. If this information is available on your web site then
please provide a link to *the relevant pages*.

Note that after the first sentence it does ask for comment, which I
note you were unwilling to provide. People will draw their own
conclusions from that unwillingness. However, that does not alter
the fact that the first sentence asks for specific information. If
you do not have a policy, but instead individual officers make it
up as they go along, then please state this.

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen