Request To The Information Commissioner's Office, Regarding Universal Jobmatch Privacy Issues

"WP/UJ/Cookies

Nigel Oldfield, 7 Mar, to casework, casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer you to my previous communication:

*****

Nigel Oldfield 24/12/2012

Dear Sir or Madam,

As you may be aware, the DWP appears to be on the verge of making access to The Universal Jobmatch system, mandatory, for those claiming certain benefits.

The system uses multiple cookies, from the DWP/Monster, so as to monitor claimants' activities, whenever it will choose to do so.

It appears, that the suggested mandatory nature, can only require, that these cookies be accepted and maintained; to not do so, will lead to sanctions and loss of benefits.

For personal, security, reasons, I clean my PC, at regular intervals. I am sure you will recognise, how these conflicting issues will be a problem, in the future, for many users.

Have you (or others) done any preliminary work, with the DWP (or others), on the legality and ramifications, of this issue?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield"

Reply

"Response from the Information Commissioner's Office[Ref. ENQ*******]

casework@ico.org.uk, 14:38 (1 hour ago), to me, PROTECT, 28 March 2013

Case Reference Number ENQ*******

Dear Dr Oldfield

We are now in a position to provide you with a response to your enquiry regarding the DWP’s Universal Jobmatch system and we apologise for the length of time it has taken to respond to you.

Following a number of enquiries/complaints which we received regarding the DWP and the new Universal Jobmatch service, our Strategic Liaison department contacted the DWP to raise concerns about the new online service, particularly in relation to the quality of information about the service, security of the site and contradictory messages about whether it was mandatory or not. We also highlighted to the DWP people’s concerns about the wording of the terms and conditions, particularly the disclaimers about who could access people’s information, and the lack of clarity about who was the data controller for the online service.

Organisations that process personal information are required to do so in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The first data protection principle states that personal data shall be processed ‘fairly and lawfully’ and a key element of fairness is ensuring people know who is processing their information and how it will be used. We raised our concerns with the DWP and advised that they should review the information they were providing to ensure it complied with the DPA requirements and we recommended that privacy notices should be visible, easy to access and written in a way that could be easily understood by their client group. We also advised of the lack of clarity about which organisation was responsible for the personal data on the Universal Jobmatch online service.

DWP confirmed that the Universal Jobmatch site is a separate, bespoke job search site created for DWP by Monster. It also confirmed that security safeguards had been built into the site but accepted that the disclaimers in the terms and conditions made it appear that this was not the case. DWP informed us that the site was secure and they would look again at the privacy notice and terms and conditions to ensure these complied with the DPA.

In response to contradictory information about whether the service was compulsory or not, DWP confirmed on 28 February that Jobseeker Allowance claimants could be required to use the Universal Jobmatch service from 1 March 2013, and that this could well be mandatory.

It would appear that to a large extent the enquiries/complaints we have received mainly resulted from unclear information provided through either their websites or staff. We now understand after consulting with the DWP that they have revised the privacy policy, provided additional guidance to advisers, produced leaflets and used easier to understand information about the scheme. We also understand that the terms and conditions have been replaced by a webpage on ‘standards of behaviour for jobseekers’ (see link below). DWP has also assured us that they have taken additional steps to guard against bogus employers, including increased checks on employer and vacancy details.

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/register.aspx?redirect=http%3a%2f%2fjobsearch.direct.gov.uk%2fhome.aspx

Moving forward from this point

If you now have any further concerns in relation to the Universal Jobmatch process, its implementation or the DWP services then you will need to raise these directly with the DWP. It is not within our remit to comment on how this process works or the fact that this has now become a mandatory process.

If you wish to raise concerns with the DWP you can access information about their complaint process through this link - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/contact-us/complaints-and-appeals/

We are satisfied that the DWP have taken on board the nature of the complaints and enquiries we have received in relation to Universal Jobmatch and matters of concern with the DPA and that they have put the necessary steps in place to comply with the DPA.

Therefore, if you have specific concerns in relation to your personal data and compliance with the DPA, then in the first instance you would need to raise this in writing with the DWP to give them the opportunity to look into your concerns and respond to you.

If after doing this you are not satisfied with their response you may be able to raise this as a complaint with our office, for further information on this process please helpline on 0303 123 1113 to discuss your concerns.

I appreciate that this information may not address all your concerns but hope this satisfies the DPA element for which our office regulates. If you wish to know more about the DPA please see our website www.ico.org.uk Yours sincerely

Thomas Booker
Case Officer - First Contact Group
Information Commissioner’s Office
Direct dial number - 01625 545552
____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.

Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.

Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.

The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. __________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk"

*****

Universal Jobmatch website – Standards of Behaviour for Jobseekers (DWP)

Universal Jobmatch website – Standards of Behaviour for Jobseekers (DWP)

*****

Nigel

You Can Run ...

18th February 2013

Delays to reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

"We're disappointed to announce that this morning we've received notification from the Government that the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, due to come into force in Spring 2013, have been delayed. The Ministry of Justice provided us with the following:

"As you know, the commencement of the reforms are dependent on the necessary system changes being in place so that basic disclosure certificates for England and Wales will reflect the new rehabilitation periods. We had been aiming to commence the reforms by April 2013, however, it will not be possible to achieve the necessary system changes by that date and we are now looking at commencement in November.""

Nigel

Actuarially False

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Showdown looming over predictive accuracy of actuarials

"Large error rates thwart individual risk prediction

If you are involved in risk assessments in any way (and what psychology-law professional is not, given the current cultural landscape?), now is the time to get up to speed on a major challenge that's fast gaining recognition.

At issue is whether the margins of error around scores are so wide as to prevent reliable prediction of an individual's risk, even as risk instruments show some (albeit weak) predictive accuracy on a group level. If the problem is unsolvable, as critics maintain, then actuarial tools such as the Static-99 and VRAG should be barred from court, where they can literally make the difference between life and death."

"From both clinical and legal perspectives, it is arbitrary and therefore inappropriate to rely solely on a statistical algorithm developed a priori - and therefore developed without any reference to the facts of the case at hand - to make decisions about an individual, especially when the decision may result in deprivation of liberties. Instead, good practice requires a flexible approach, one in which professionals are aware of and rely on knowledge of the scientific literature, but also recognize that their decisions ultimately require consideration of the totality of circumstances - not just the items of a particular test."

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/showdown-looming-over-predictive.html

10/07/2003. Reissued 20/04/05 

Offender Assessment and Sentence Management - OASys

"Q: How accurate is the risk predictor?

A: The risk predictor is what is known as an actuarial or statistical risk assessment tool. The risk predictor has been extensively tested and it has been found to be very reliable. Research on similar tools also suggests that they are at least as accurate as clinical judgements. It should, however, be borne in mind that a score on the scale defines the probability that an offender in general with that history of offending will be reconvicted. It does not define the probability that the specific individual offender will be reconvicted. The scale can only be an aid to judgement and one aspect of risk assessment. Other factors also have to be taken into account when assessing the risk posed by a particular offender."

PSO_2205_offender_assessment_and_sentence_management.doc

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Remarkable experiment proves pull of adversarial allegiance

"Psychologists' scoring of forensic tools depends on which side they believe has hired them.

A brilliant experiment has proven that adversarial pressures skew forensic psychologists' scoring of supposedly objective risk assessment tests, and that this "adversarial allegiance" is not due to selection bias, or preexisting differences among evaluators."

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/remarkable-experiment-proves-pull-of.html

Nigel

I'm Nearly Spent

December 2012

Is it spent now?

1. Introduction

"This guide explains the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) which the Government has made through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). It does not explain how the current ROA works (that is covered on our Information Hub and will be updated once the changes come into force)."

'Is it spent now?' - New brief guide on changes to the ROA (Unlock Forum)

*****

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Explanatory Notes - Chapter 8: Rehabilitation of offenders

"48. Chapter 8 contains a package of changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (“the ROA”) to amend the scope of the Act and its rehabilitation periods. The amendments extend the scope of the ROA so that custodial sentences of up to and including 4 years in length can become ‘spent’. The times at which different convictions become ‘spent’ are also amended, and in most cases the rehabilitation periods are reduced. Where a caution or conviction has become spent, the offender is treated as rehabilitated in respect of that offence and is not obliged to declare it for most purposes, for example, when applying for employment or insurance."

CHAPTER 8: Rehabilitation of offenders

*****

Orders 

Additions coming.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012  (2906)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2012  (2824)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Children Act 1989) (Children Remanded to Youth Detention Accommodation) Regulations 2012 (2813)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 3 and Saving Provision) Order 2012 (2770)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 2 and Specification of Commencement Date) Order 2012 -18th September 2012 (2412)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2012 - 24th July 2012 (1956)

*****

Regarding 'drag through'/further convictions ...

'Then' (pre-LASPO 2012) ...

Further Convictions 

"Further convictions

 If a rehabilitation period is still running and the offender commits a ‘summary’ offence, a minor offence that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court, the minor offence will not affect the rehabilitation period for the other offence; each offence will expire separately."

What is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

"What happens if I get another caution or conviction before my first conviction becomes spent?

If you already have an unspent conviction (not including unspent conditional cautions), and you get a further caution or conviction before the earlier conviction has become spent, one of the following will apply:

1. If your later outcome is a caution (either a simple caution or a conditional caution), reprimand or warning, neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the caution for the later offence will become spent after the normal period (immediately for a simple caution or three months for a conditional caution).

2. If your later outcome is a conviction for a summary offence, (one that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court), neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the conviction for the later offence will become spent after the normal period.

3. If your later outcome is a conviction for an either way or an indictable offence (one which could be tried in the Crown Court) then neither conviction will become spent until the rehabilitation period for both offences are over.

4. If your later outcome is a conviction that results in a prison sentence of more than 2 ½ years then neither the second nor the first conviction will ever become spent.

Once a conviction becomes spent, it remains spent, even if a person is convicted of other offences later."

'Now' (post-LASPO 2012) ...

3.4 Increasing Some Rehabilitation Periods

"a) Further convictions 

Currently, the rehabilitation periods for further convictions for summary offences run separately from other unspent convictions. However, further triable either-way and indictable offences ‘drag through’ existing unspent convictions, extending their rehabilitation period until the last one is spent. Following the changes, all offences will create this ‘drag through’ effect, including summary."

Nigel

A Letter To The Home Office (Part 2)

Not yet sent, being proof-read. Recent additions in sand.

*****

To: The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

xx/12/2012

Dear Ms May,

I wish to survey your thoughts, and the official position and intention of the Ministry/Government, on the following issues:


**********

Issue 1

R v Wiles (2004): Ramifications For Police Forces And Those Who Are Required To Register, Under The Sexual Offences Act 2003

I am sure that you are aware of this document (www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/IAG/SORExtendedSentence.pdf).

The main thrust, of the implications of Wiles, is understood, if not agreed upon..

I request clarification, of the following passage, and how it should impact, consistently, on all police forces, in regards to them relinquishing people from (or maintaining them within), notification requirements:

"... to make sure that they have applied the effects of this judgement from at least 1 April 2005."

Please provide a more extended explanation, of what this passage is meant to convey, and, in particular, the nature of the phrase 'at least' and:

e.g. does it mean, that Wiles is retrospective, based on sentencing, prior to Wiles and/or 1/4/2005?

e.g. does it mean, that the requirement to notify, is retrospective, based on sentencing, before 1/4/2005, in light of Wiles?

If the answer to either of these question is "yes", what does the government intend to do, so as to rectify this situation, by legislation (I am sure that you are aware, that the whole construct, of the 'Extended Sentence'; was different, prior to that date and, in fact, earlier to it, than to what it is now).

If your answer, in terms of intention, is "nothing", why not?

On R v Wiles
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-r-v-wiles.html

A Letter To The Home Office (Part 1) 
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-r-v-wiles-letter-to-home-office-part.html

What Is 'Imprisonment'? 
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/76-meaning-of-custodial-sentence.html 

Sexual Offences Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2


**********

Issue 2:

Re-Balancing The Notification Periods: In Light Of The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

I am sure, that any reasonable person would agree with me, that the excellent work carried out by Lord Dholakia, and his colleagues (leading to the amendments of the ROA 1974 (via LASPOA 2012)), is one small, but, very important, step, in enabling those who have served their debt to society (and more), towards integration as good-standing and productive members of that society. I do have to say, in these days, it is relatively brave and rare, for a government to support such amendments.

Prejudice and persecution, against people, such as myself, are rife, within our communities; that can never be 'a good thing'.

It is now illuminating, to consider the intention of Parliament, when the original Sex Offenders Bill (1996) and Act (1997), were being created:

"The Bill

The Government published its Sex Offenders Bill on 18 December 1996 ... For present purposes, we will focus on Part 1 ... which in turn constituted five clauses, specifying the offenders who will have to register and for how long they will be required to register; describing what information must be supplied and how; making failure to comply with the requirements an offence; outlining the position of young offenders (i.e. under 18 years); and empowering courts to issue certificates stating details of the court hearing. How did the Bill compare to the Consultation Document? First we should note that, although putting forward options, the Consultation Document did contain what might be called the Government's 'preferred options'. These included, firstly, that we did actually have registration requirements, and that their duration should match that of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. (my emphasis). Failure to register was to be an absolute offence and the provisions should not be retrospective; the offence of failing to register would be a summary one. Registration was to be in the locality where the offender lived. The Government wanted access to the information on record to be given to those engaged in child protection activities.

The Bill reflected all of these 'preferred options' (my emphasis), although again had nothing directly to say on the subject of allowing access to registered information. It is true to say that the Government continually held the line on all its preferred options, although some were held more easily than others."

(Thomas, T. (2000), Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, pg. 108-109, Willan).

The arguments, which the present government supported, towards the LASPOA 2012 amendments, are parallel in nature to those considered, during their creation, and are on record, in the usual places.

I need not comment, here, about the continuing, draconian, populist, mission creep, within the notification requirements, which a person in my position suffers. I have stated such, here, and no doubt, will do so again, in the future:

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/creation-of-fresh-pariahs.html

This is particularly irritating, in a personal sense, as it rests only.on Wiles,  which I (amongst others) see as per incuriam, in itself. It is galling and offensive, to one such as myself, who presents no more a risk to society, than any man in the street (and never has - quite the opposite, in fact).

So, the question is this; does the government intend to re-balance the notification periods, with those in the LASPOA 2012 amendments and with the original intention of Parliament?

If that answer is "no", why not?

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/part/3/chapter/8/enacted

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53 (requires correction, at the time of writing, via Commencement)

Sexual Offences Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]: Second Reading
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110121-0001.htm#11012142000397

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9367000/9367178.stm

Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120119200607/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf


**********

Issue 3:

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Commencement

Do you have any further guidance on (or dates applying to) when the periods, described in Issue 2, are likely to be 'Commenced'?

**********

Issue 4:

The ICPC

Regarding the ICPC, I received this email, from your representative:

"public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

19 Oct
to me
Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield,
Reference : T14916/12
Date: 19-Oct-2012

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Thank you for your e-mail of 18/10/2012 8:11:07 PM.

The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for Education.

We have therefore transferred your e-mail to DfE, who will arrange for a reply to be sent to you.

Transfer Desk"

Please provide, in as much detail as possible, to whom my request was redirected.

For the record, I do not believe, for one moment, it is the responsibility of the DfE; Do you?


**********

If you believe that any of my requests relate better to The Ministry of Justice, please redirect my email to them, informing me that you have done so and to whom. You may treat this as a request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, if you so desire.

For the record, it is very likely, that these communications will be shared with my local Member of Parliament and, possibly, in later legal action(s). They may, also, be posted online.

A copy of this email is posted at:

http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-communication-to-our-home-secretary.html

... with active hyperlinks, where appropriate.

A copy of this email has been sent to the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, and my PPU, by Royal Mail.

I look forward to your reply, which is preferred, by email.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
wmcriticalestoppel@googlemail.com
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk

**********

Nigel.

*****

Addendum (2/8/13)

"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is an important piece of legislation. It is designed to help people with a criminal record get back into work by allowing their record to become ‘spent’ after a period of time, provided they have not reoffended.

Once a record is spent, this means that the person is no longer required to declare their offence to a prospective employer. At this point, as the Act says, they are ‘entitled to be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not been convicted or sentenced’."

http://www.nacro.org.uk/what-we-do/resettlement-advice-service/reforms-to-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act/what-is-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974,1346,NAP.html

**********

Nigel.

On The SOA2003(R)O 2012

I contributed some research and content, to The OSC's recent piece, on the The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 (appeal of indefinite notification], which can be found, here.

Why Owning Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence, In Reality (Part 2)

Or even in law ...

A reply, from me, in a forum thread:

When is a sex offender not a sex offender?

"The main point M, I believe, is that the offence is not sexual (see the SOA definition of 'Sexual') at all.

Prosecution is under POCA and CJA. The SOA is only an issue of notification, for offences under those acts.

(1) There is no legal requirement for an IIOC to be sexual at all !!! It need only be I and of a C,

(2) What someone 'does' with those images, is irrelevant, in law,

(3) Only a passing, schedule, definition, in the SOA makes us 'Sexual Offenders',

(4) The 'knock-on effect' then becoming punitive, persecutory and prejudicial, in many ways.

The description of any image owner, as a 'Sex Offender', is offensive, incorrect and dangerous; and I keep telling them so.

WM"

Nigel

Why Owning Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence, In Reality (Part 1)

... unless you can square the intellectual circle, above - can you?

Please let me know, if you can.

Nigel