This is the data watchdog! Surrender your Matt Hancock smoochy-kiss pics right now! Two homes in South England have been searched by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) today after pictures of former health secretary Matt Hancock kissing a colleague appeared in a Brit newspaper. Investigators seized personal computer equipment and electronic devices as part of today's operation. The exact locations of …
Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018. (Apologies for crappy formatting):
It is also a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that—
...
(c) the person acted—
(i) was necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime,
(ii) was required or authorised by an enactment, by a rule of law or by the order of a court or tribunal, or
(iii) in the particular circumstances, was justified as being in the public interest.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/170/enacted
I think a good defence lawyer could go for a defence under (c)(iii).
And not the alacrity of the ICO in defending the privacy of ministers compared to their sluggish approach with Facebook and the like. And, unlike Facebook, we can be sure there won't be a cosy agreement behind the scenes for the ICO to stop investigating the individuals in this case.
A jury in the UK can reach any conclusion for any reason. It is known for a jury to declare that somebody who did commit the act was "not guilty" despite this being blatently the case. It's technicaly known as "Jury Equity" in the UK.
To avoid this whomever did it will be tried by a summary offence at the magistrates court instead of via a jury trial.
Depending on the charges, the defendants may have the option to decide for a crown court trial before a judge and jury. I believe that this is an option when a crime could be sent to the crown court for sentencing as lay magistrates have limits on the punishments they can impose (el Reg's legal beagles, please advise).
Publishing images from a security camera inside a supposedly secure government building, potentially breaching the privacy of a (relatively) innocent person (the lady in question) could attract a reasonably serious charge. A minor charge that could be sentenced by lay magistrates might by some be considered to be an insult to Mr Hancock and his new ladyfriend. Frankly in such a politically charged atmosphere I suspect that many lay magistrates would not want to touch this with the proverbial barge-pole.
I suspect that it would not attract prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts as no HMG information was leaked.
We will just have to wait and see.
I'm curious, how was 'the lady in question' an innocent party here?
Not entirely innocent, but Hancock had seniority. Obviously it's a slightly odd one because he's not a civil servant so is not a direct line manager in HR terms, but it reflects on him worse as he should be setting an example and abiding by his own department's rules.
If a manager and a subordinate are caught rule-breaking, the bulk of trouble should land on the senior party.
I believe that this is an option when a crime could be sent to the crown court for sentencing as lay magistrates have limits on the punishments they can impose (el Reg's legal beagles, please advise).
Usually English laws are very simple to read and are as follows:-
IF <committed offence> (known as actus reus which means "he broke the window")
ANDIF <intended to commit offence> (known as Mens rea, so if you broke that window above, but didn't intend to (for instance you reversed your car into it) then the law recognises that you can be a negligent prat, but not worth criminal persecution.
EXCEPTIF <Circumstances that you didn't commit an offence>
THEN <Max punishment via summary trial by Magistrate> OR <punishment by indictment by Crown Court Judge>
ie; section 1 of the computer misuse act for an example that should be familiar
Now let's look at the GDPR legislation:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/170/enacted
Firstly, you'll notice that the common law concepts of Intent/Mens rea are not applicable and that the entire thing is a barely comprehensible mess, which leaves it very open to people pointing out that fundamental principles of our justice system aren't being applied allowing for endless appeals in the courts; it's great in that respect.
If you are sufficiently persistent then you'll find the sentencing in section 196. (which says that you can be fined in both the magistrates and crown court)
No, pretty sure exposing a Minster of the Government breaking the law is in the public interest. If I were in his constituency I'd be organising the petition to have him recalled and hold a by-election.
Not to mention the untrustworthiness of cheating on his wife and three children, although that seems to be a desirable attribute to qualify for election these days.
It is specifically in the public interest because he was breaking the regulations he promoted and helped to draft as Secretary of State for DHSC. The same rules he broke by kissing someone not in his immediate family are the rules that he told others to obey and not hug their grandparents, relatives in care homes etc. When a minister of the crown breaks his own rules it is, surely, in the public interest to know. Or maybe not, we'll have to wait and see what happens in court, if it gets that far.
I'm ok with them trying to use that defence. I don't know whether what they did will meet the legal threshold for such a defence but a court feels a good venue to properly assess that.
I don't actually believe it for a moment. This was motivated by another agenda, and it'll be interesting to discover the background and circumstances to help inform what that is.
Interested what you think the other agenda is? If it's 'political' then it's surely still in the public interest because political rivalry is essentially what helps hold government to account in a democracy, and holding government to account is widely considered to be in the public interest.
I wonder if the public interest whistleblowing protection law might be relevent too, aside from the GDPR-specific exemption. You are supposed to whistle-blow about a 'crime' (acknowledging it's not 100% clear Matt & lover did break the law) to a prescribed body, which doesn't normally include the press. But perhaps it could be argued for whistle-blowing on someone as powerful as a Secretary of State there is no more appropriate method than publicising it as widely as possible - and as it is the person(s) still appear to have been raided, which is the kind of retaliation whistleblowers are supposed to be protected from.
But we don't know what other wrongdoing has gone on. Perhaps they've been abusing the CCTV system for years and stashed away hours of footage of MPs jacking off in their lunch hour, then the book will be thrown and the kissing incident may not even come up in court. I just hope they get a decent solicitor anyway.
"and as it is the person(s) still appear to have been raided, which is the kind of retaliation whistleblowers are supposed to be protected from."
From the little we know so far, it seems whoever got hold of the data then passed it to the press, possibly anonymously or as a "protected" source. I don't think that reaches the level of "whistle blower" in law. If the law doesn't know who the whistle blower is, it can't protect them. So, it seems at this stage, they are treating is as criminal act of breaking into a system and stealing data.
On the other hand, as was mentioned further up, the ICO seem to be taking a single instance of a very tiny amount of data affecting only two people way more seriously than the 99.99% of other open cases they have on the books, let alone the many more they simply refuse to investigate.
Superficially it's a legit act of whistleblowing that lead to a swift resignation. You don't need to know the identity of the whistleblower to know that going after them is the wrong thing to do in a society which attempts to protect public interest whistleblowing. The law is absolutely still protecting the anonymous person(s) if it makes it unlikely a conviction will follow, and your investigation is thus a waste of resources.
I do think however given where the leak came from there's a responsibility to perform some investigation to make sure there's nothing extra going on which could impact national security. There probably isn't but it'd be serious if there was. That investigation should surely be handled by the Parliamentary Security Department, the police, or even MI5. Not the ICO.
"This was motivated by another agenda, and it'll be interesting to discover the background and circumstances to help inform what that is."
Not really. Security guard figured it was juicy gossip that could be sold to a tabloid rag for a quick buck. Hancock is an incompetent nobody who would be despised even by his own party if only anyone actually cared enough to think about him at all. He simply isn't important enough for anyone with an interesting agenda to waste their time on. Profumo affair this is not.
in plain English: if you see - look away! And if you hold a grudge, expect Spanish Inquisition to come knocking for your devices...
that said, other than being an unfaithful (...), and being an incompetent (...), and making some shady covid deals that have been swept under the carpet, our dear ex-minister didn't break any laws. At least not the for-the-plebs-law that says: thou shall not fornicate at thy workplace*
*Unless you're Boris the Boss himself, or one of Boris mates, terms & conditions apply. Evidently, at some point, our beloved (ex) minister has lost the 'mate' status. But it would be madly conspirationalistic to suggest certain 3-letter agencies would have been 'asked' to find some dirt to expedite his departure from the post, due to his, growing, image of becoming too much of the liability for the Current (Glorious) Leadership.
He's still a Boris Mate. Remember that after Hancock apologised, Boris said the matter was closed.
It was only after Hancock resigned due to the unaccountable bad feelings expressed by those who had been unable to attend funerals, hug grandparents just before they died, visit elderly relatives, see their disabled children in their children's homes or their partners suffering form dementia because of Matt Hancock's rules that it all went sour. (Some people are so picky when it comes to arrant hypocrisy and lies.)
Even more madly conspirationalistic to suggest that the whole thing was stage managed because the medics are out and the economists are in with Boris and the party, but they wanted an easy out for Hancock that wouldn't risk looking like a fight between the lockdowners and the live and let die brigade. Look what happens to divided parties...
That would require a level of competence and organisational prowess that Boris and co can't even begin to imagine.
The real explanation is of course that Hancock wanted a bit on the side, so hired his squeeze so she'd have an excuse for "meetings" in his "office".
The leak will have come about because civil servants, like most people, don't like it when ministers take the piss.
Deffo incompetent. What sensible person would see a leak enquiry starting to point at your mates, and then go "No, it was that Dom character, blame him!" and not realise that someone as smart as him (and as angry as him) is likely to know where the bodies are buried and what their email addresses are?
If it is unlawful, report it to the police. If it is breaking "company" policy, report it internally.
Selling it to the newspapers is not the answer, well, apart from quickly lining one's pockets.
It is a difficult one, yay, wrong-doing brought to light. Boo, misuse of power to obtain the images and sell them to the highest bidder. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
So, good that Matt Hancock is out, but how are you going to trust the people in the CCTV control room ever again, to do their job properly?
If I'd been caught 'in flagrante dilecto' on camera as it were (sorry if I've spelt it wrong) I'd want A0 size posters printed. It is a long time since I had a fling, what with my leg and asthma and being a little 'past my best'* as it were.
*I'm old, rich, desperate and gullible - what more could you possibly want?
Let's say I visited some government building for some legitimate purpose, used the facilities but forgot to do up my fly on the way out, this was caught on the CCTV and a picture of me with my fly undone was released by person unknown to an astonished public. Would I be happy?
It's vital you trust CCTV, especially Gov's CCTV! We can't have you lot realising it could catch you up to "naughties" anytime and anywhere, from then on you'll be more careful or worse start demanding less surveilliance! Imagine a world with less surveillance, so many MP's security company mates losing out on overpaid Gov contracts, those poor CEOs!
Padon my misunderstanding, but wasn't he caught actually breaking the law, which he had sternly warned others against breaking?
In that case, it isn't "his personal data", you don't get to have the security company charged under the data protection act if you get caught on camera robbing somewhere!
I mean, do they really think that the country is outraged because the footage got out, rather than because of what he did? It's the good old fashioned establishment elite defending their own right to break the rules, punishing the whistleblowers instead for daring to show therm up as hypocrites.
wasn't he caught actually breaking the law, which he had sternly warned others against breaking?
Surely it was merely "strong advice"? Even the plods have had to back off(*) for fear of an ultra vires case.
(*) And pay back fines.
HASAWA places a duty of care within the workplace that he most definitely breached.
Snogging someone outside your household while at work would almost certainly be illegal under the specific covid laws too - that's not the kind of "grey area" like sitting on a bench or driving somewhere to exercise.
"Snogging someone outside your household while at work would almost certainly be illegal under the specific covid laws too - that's not the kind of "grey area" like sitting on a bench or driving somewhere to exercise."
Maybe he was concerned that too much wanking would make him go blind, so to stave the possibility of a drive to Barnard Castle for an eye test, he was looking for an alternative outlet? Lessons, for once, were learned!!
Putting aside the "Shoot the messenger", and just how heavy handed this is, Doesn't it open the door against the ICO for not applying the same amount of diligence to EVERYONE else's data? Not to mention how promptly they have acted on this.
I know I've made complaints to the ICO about companies that have harvested my data and then continued to use after GDPR requests from myself. They will typically take 6-12 months before even looking at most issues.
"It's vital that all people, including employees and visitors to public buildings, have trust and confidence in the protection of their personal data captured by CCTV."
THEIR personal data?
Wait, so CCTV images are OUR personal data?
Nah, its a public building, it makes no difference whether its Handcock kissing in front of the cameras or a Tesco shoplifter stealing a toaster, they don't get a say in the way their CCTV data is used. This is not their personal data, and ICO is well out of bounds here.
This is a contract issue between EMCOR and DHSC and between EMCOR and staff.
Quit using watchdogs as private police forces.
AC: "Wait, so CCTV images are OUR personal data?"
Well, yes, actually. If you are recorded on CCTV, you can submit a Subject Access Request to the relevant organisation and obtain a copy in a readable format. You would have to provide as much detail as necessary to find the relevant part of the recording, location, date, time and probably duration, but legally, yes, it is your data, which is why CCTV has to be registered with the ICO. Note this only applies in the EU and UK AFAIK.
In most workplaces, sexual activity, consensual or not, counts as gross misconduct, which is normally cause for immediate termination. Nothing to do with morality - if MrsO worked at my place and we got caught engaging in marital activities* in my workplace (my official workplace, not my kitchen), we could expect the boot.
*The good kind, not the "it was your turn to put the bins out/what time do you call this?" sort
Are you in the US of A by chance? I thought the British were prudes, but I've worked in large organisations alongside married couples and no-one batted an eye if they kissed* each other when they met, in a closed office I'm sure some arse grabbing probably when on. Neither of which are "sexual activity" - Q: "So how did you catch your STI?" A: "Well I was touching my g/f arse while queuing for the cinema"
* to qualify, not full on Frenchy
I don't think this is the right way.
It should be a police investigation, with a security services liaison. This is a matter of national security - not Hancock and his smoochy-kiss, but the unauthorised access and sharing of video footage captured on security cameras inside a Government building.
That the ICO are pursuing it is frankly weird.
This was the government minister charged with protecting the NHS and England during a pandemic. A role he was rightfully criticised for, many tens of thousands of avoidable deaths can be laid at his door. This is the guy who urged the police to prosecute his scientific advisor when they broke the rules for sex.
And he didn't know there was CCTV in his office? How stupid do you have to be not to recognise a CCTV camera, or at least read the office guidelines?
I think the police should be seizing his electronic devices. There is an outside chance that Matt released the footage to bump his hottie paramour into helping him dump his wife and kids knowing full well Boris would approve.
How was it breached?
How much CCTV data was stolen?
Was it confined to the London DHSC or multiple DHSC facilities or multiple facilities EMCOR is managing?
Why hasn't EMCOR publicly announced the dates, times, and locations affected by the breach?
What has EMCOR changed in their systems to prevent this from happening again?
"How was it breached?"
I can't answer the rest of your questions, but from the look of the original footage it appears that it was recorded on a mobile phone (loosely) fixed on a security monitor. My first thought after watching it was, suspect the building security guards.
Disclosure: many moons ago I used to work as a security guard in building security. What fun.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
