Council apologises for bad intelligence gathering on gay rights activist

Posted On 10 Aug 2014 at 1:20 pm
By :

Brighton and Hove City Council has apologised after a gay rights activist was  warned by police over a bbq she knew nothing about.

Beth Granter

Beth Granter

Beth Granter of Queers Against Cuts was called at work about the event which the police and council said she was organising and which they believed could “attract undesirables”.

But she knew nothing about the event. She was later told details had been posted by someone else on a Facebook page she set up two years ago – but a search of that also drew a blank.

Last week, the council’s chief executive sent Ms Granter a letter of apology, saying the error had arisen from work the council’s environmental and licensing officers had carried out.

She said: “In reviewing social networking intelligence, officers misunderstood the information and then permitted their letter and information to you to be inappropriately delivered by the police.”

She also explained that the council monitors unauthorised Pride events, as “in previous years, such ‘raves’ have caused nuisance and anxiety to residents and presented risk to public safety.”

You can read more on Beth’s blog here.

  1. feline1 Reply

    What sanction will these “officers” face for their flagrant breach of data protection law and miserable incompetance generally? Would it be “none whatsoever”?

  2. feline1 Reply

    What sanction will these “officers” face for their flagrant breach of data protection law and miserable incompetance generally? Would it be “none whatsoever”?

  3. feline1 Reply

    What sanction will these “officers” face for their flagrant breach of data protection law and miserable incompetance generally? Would it be “none whatsoever”?

  4. George Coombs Reply

    Yes, the point made by felne 1 is important; these council “officers” should be held to account yet it is highly probable there will be no sanction at all. The council do too much in secret and need a thorough overhaul, I have work background that would help but offers of help have been carelessly abused-well done for postine felne1

  5. George Coombs Reply

    Yes, the point made by felne 1 is important; these council “officers” should be held to account yet it is highly probable there will be no sanction at all. The council do too much in secret and need a thorough overhaul, I have work background that would help but offers of help have been carelessly abused-well done for postine felne1

  6. George Coombs Reply

    Yes, the point made by felne 1 is important; these council “officers” should be held to account yet it is highly probable there will be no sanction at all. The council do too much in secret and need a thorough overhaul, I have work background that would help but offers of help have been carelessly abused-well done for postine felne1

  7. Blues Reply

    How did “officers” breach data protection?

  8. Blues Reply

    How did “officers” breach data protection?

  9. Blues Reply

    How did “officers” breach data protection?

  10. No obvious breach of DPA here, just research and intel gathering of open sources. JF

  11. No obvious breach of DPA here, just research and intel gathering of open sources. JF

  12. No obvious breach of DPA here, just research and intel gathering of open sources. JF

  13. feline1 Reply

    Rubbish. They were storing personally identifiable information about a third party on their systems, and passed that data to the police for no good reason.

  14. feline1 Reply

    Rubbish. They were storing personally identifiable information about a third party on their systems, and passed that data to the police for no good reason.

  15. feline1 Reply

    Rubbish. They were storing personally identifiable information about a third party on their systems, and passed that data to the police for no good reason.

  16. Information was (allegedly) gathered from a social networking site publicly available. Processed with regard to potential breach of the peace or risk to public safety and/or other factors. Ms Granters’ information would/should have then been deleted once found to have no relation to the event and no longer required.

    I agree that a level of incompetence has played a factor here and embarrassing for the council but information doesn’t seem to have been processed in a manner that would breach DPA.

  17. Information was (allegedly) gathered from a social networking site publicly available. Processed with regard to potential breach of the peace or risk to public safety and/or other factors. Ms Granters’ information would/should have then been deleted once found to have no relation to the event and no longer required.

    I agree that a level of incompetence has played a factor here and embarrassing for the council but information doesn’t seem to have been processed in a manner that would breach DPA.

  18. Information was (allegedly) gathered from a social networking site publicly available. Processed with regard to potential breach of the peace or risk to public safety and/or other factors. Ms Granters’ information would/should have then been deleted once found to have no relation to the event and no longer required.

    I agree that a level of incompetence has played a factor here and embarrassing for the council but information doesn’t seem to have been processed in a manner that would breach DPA.

  19. feline1 Reply

    I’m glad you’re not the Information Commissioner!

  20. feline1 Reply

    I’m glad you’re not the Information Commissioner!

  21. feline1 Reply

    I’m glad you’re not the Information Commissioner!

Leave a Reply to Blues Cancel reply

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.