Met sells FAC/SGC data to marketing company...

Pedro

Well-Known Member
They, quite rightly, want certificate holders to exercise the highest level of security that's reasonable, including information that you may be keeping firearms in your house to yourself. Then they just let all that information go to some marketing company. We all know how ethically sound marketing companies are, don't we.

What checks, if any were done on that company? None, I bet. The office boy at the marketing company could have gone home to his dad, whose job is an armed robber and gave him that list. Or perhaps the tea ladies husband has been brainwashed as a terrorist. As these were leaflets, I guess the postman now knows you've got guns too!

The police have a difficult job to do when it comes to preventing gun crime and terrorism. Thankfully such incidents even in this day and age are relatively few and far between. But this type of thing doesn't help. If they really needed to promote Smartwater, the benefits of which are debatable, then why not just slip a leaflet into the envelope when they send you back your certificates?
 

casper

Well-Known Member
Surely the logical thing would have been to approach basc, ngo and sacs to send out leaflets in their magazines
 

JTO

Well-Known Member
I thought Smartwater was more than just 'invisible ink'. I understand that each bottle/can had a unique digital code that was registered to the buyer.

Any SD plod members ever seen it found and acted upon?
 

deeangeo

Well-Known Member
Wow! Astonishing behaviour by the Met.
So how far are we to trust other Constabularys?.....my gut instinct tells me not at all.
 

del.gue

Active Member
You dont need anything like smartwater on a firearm anyway.
It bothers me that these marketing companies also sell this type information to others.
 

scubadog

Well-Known Member
Why would anyone need smart water to track the owner? Surley that's what serial numbers are for.

This incident, the shop a shooter phone line, the unannounced inspections (searches without warrants) and the complete disarray surrounding firearms applications just shows how incompetent the police are and further alienates the law abiding shooting community.
 

C Graffius

Active Member
Official Member
MetPolice data breach compromises firearms security, says BASC

BASC hasasked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to clarify the legal basisfor passing on addresses of its 30,000 firearm and shotgun certificate holdersto external contractors.

The Met hasconfirmed it used Leeds-based company Corporate Document Services (CDS) toprint leaflets advising certificate holders of a scheme to buy a product calledSmartwater to forensically mark their guns.

BASC, theUK’s largest shooting organisation, understands CDS in turn sub-contracteddistribution of these leaflets to Yes Direct Mail, who are also based in Leeds.

In itsletter to Met Commissioner Cressida Dick, BASC has outlined concerns that thehome security of certificate holders in London has been compromised byout-sourcing distribution of the leaflets.

Theassociation has also asked the Met to clarify the legal authority to support anapparent breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and wider guidelinessurrounding privacy and marketing.

The dataprotection statement that both police and certificate holders agree to when anapplication is made only appears to give police permission to share personaldetails with GPs, other government departments, regulatory bodies orenforcement agencies. It does not cover commercial companies, even if they areapproved by the police and hold security accreditation.

Inaddition, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) - the UK’s independentauthority for promoting data privacy - says prior consent must be obtained fordirect marketing and this process places a number of obligations onorganisations and companies.

The ICOsays individuals should be allowed to opt in or out of direct marketing, whilecompanies and organisations should specify methods of communication, ask forconsent to pass details to third parties or clearly name and describe thosethird parties and also record when and how consent was received and exactlywhat it covers.

The ICOguidance also places the onus on companies to check whether an individual hassubscribed to a preference service before it contacts them with marketinginformation.

BillHarriman, BASC’s director of firearms, said: “BASC will always work with theauthorities on initiatives we consider will improve firearms security.

“In thisinstance, however, we are seeking assurances from the Metropolitan Police thatthe manner in which this scheme has been rolled out has not actually put atrisk the home security of firearms and shotgun certificate holders. We areconcerned that each time that information is passed on, it heightens the riskthat sensitive, personal data will be compromised.

“Further,we can see no legal authority which allows the Met to breach the DataProtection Act by passing on sensitive, confidential information to as many asthree external companies.

“The Metappears to have struck at the heart of a key tenet of firearms security, thatwhich comes from obscurity. Those who shoot are told at every turn by thepolice to take every precaution against strangers discovering where firearmsmay be stored. Such information is currency for criminals.

“BASC istreating this as a potentially serious breach of trust by the Met. We do notbelieve certificate holders have given their permission for their sensitive,personal information to be passed to third parties.

“BASCremains pleased to be a member of and a significant contributor to theMetropolitan Police Firearms Licensing Independent Advisory Group and we notethe force has made significant strides forward in recent years in so far asimproving its service to certificate holders. We are sorry that the manner inwhich the force has tried to implement their Smartwater initiative risksundermining the Met’s reputation in the shooting community.”

ENDS
 

tozzybum

Well-Known Member
Time for a group of 30,000 people to sue the Met for total breach of the data protection act ,why dont they go the whole hog and send the "person" responsible round to apologise to all the victims of this farce after all he,s got their names and addresses as has two different contractors in Leeds ??
 

big ears

Well-Known Member
Are the met now going to offer personal protection to those who they have put at risk of attacks by antis by allowing their information into the public domain?

You couldn't write it!!
 

I. Farticus

Well-Known Member
Are the met now going to offer personal protection to those who they have put at risk of attacks by antis by allowing their information into the public domain?

You couldn't write it!!

If this list gets into the hands of "the underworld" (not meaning to sound over dramatic), expect a number of break-ins, cabinets ripped from walls or even worse, a knock on the door and a couple of large gentlemen demanding you hand over your firearms...

It's bl**dy scary frankly
 

kes

Well-Known Member
I feel its significant that BASC are not taking the matter to court over the breach of Data Protection - this story should be all over the front pages, after BASC insists the records are recovered and that those whose data security was breached are treated as a crime risk and their statistics for break-ins compared to another 30,000.
BASC should alert MP's and the Home Office minister and demand a written apology from the MET commissioner.
So much for US being a terrorist threat with this plastered all over the internet and hacking being a forte of groups known to want weapons and presently confined to vehicles.
BASC are not giving this the criticism it deserves IMHO.
 

Pedro

Well-Known Member
I feel its significant that BASC are not taking the matter to court over the breach of Data Protection - this story should be all over the front pages, after BASC insists the records are recovered and that those whose data security was breached are treated as a crime risk and their statistics for break-ins compared to another 30,000.
BASC should alert MP's and the Home Office minister and demand a written apology from the MET commissioner.
So much for US being a terrorist threat with this plastered all over the internet and hacking being a forte of groups known to want weapons and presently confined to vehicles.
BASC are not giving this the criticism it deserves IMHO.
Hold on! This isn't a BASC bashing thread! This matter was kicked off by a stupid idea from someone in the Met Police and the details disclosed to third parties are, directly, nothing to do with BASC. Although obviously a percentage of those involved will be BASC members and some may well have asked BASC to look into the matter. As you can see above with C Graffius' post, they have written to the Met and are seeking answers about this issue from them.

I have NO information that any other shooting organisation has done anything at all. Are we bashing them? You say that BASC are not taking the matter to court. I don't think that has been decided at all. Do you know different, or can you see into the future? In any case, BASC isn't the RSPCA, who take people to court at the drop of a hat y'know!
 

Top