by charles the moderator
I received the following this morning,
Dear Mr Rotter
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Kind regards
Sean Baker
Sean Baker
Detective Constable
Joint Major Investigation Team
Norfolk Constabulary
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1PE
Tel: xxx
Mobile: xxxx
This e-mail carries a disclaimer [this was a dead link. Put here for reference. ~ ctm]
Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
I responded within a few hours with this:
I can be reached at xxx. I work nights so please don’t call before noon PST. I’m in San Francisco. Between noon and 1 PM is the best time to contact me.
I have previously posted my entire involvement with the CRU leaked emails and files online here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/climategate%E2%80%94the-ctm-story/
I’m not sure what else you would like to know. I’ll see if I can cover it in advance.
1. I have never received any money for my volunteer services at wattsupwiththat.com
2. I met Steve McIntyre once for dinner two years ago when he was in town for AGU. I paid for the dinner.
3. I read Climate Audit.
4. [personal info]
5. [personal info]
6. [personal info]
7. I am 51, turning 52 next month.
I understand that you are diligently performing your investigation, and I’m not sure how well you understand the perspective from this side of the fence.
The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request. The CRU began moving the goal posts, making up more and more unbelievable reasons why they should not give data to perceived critics, thus causing the subsequent FOI’s and escalation, in which I participated. It seems likely that soon after Steve McIntyre’s appeal was denied, someone at the University of East Anglia, disgusted by what he or she witnessed, subsequently leaked the files. I have no knowledge or direct evidence that this is the case, but it is the explanation that makes the most sense.
If you would like more information on the escalation of FOI requests and the obstruction by CRU, as confirmed by your own ICO, I can dig up the relevant threads.
Phil. (19:02:30) :
Bill in Vigo (17:50:58) :
Not being familiar with British common law if that is what is involved here. Some years ago I was a police officer in Fl. U.S.A. When we received a report of a crime the report was treated as a statement of sworn fact. While it seems slow there at that time begins two investigations. 1. to determine if there actually was a crime committed. and 2. If a crime was committed who was the perpetrator.
I have a suspicion that this is more turning into a determination of did a crime actually occur. It seems that this was a publicly funded facility and by that definition “public facility” there is no right of privacy. It has already been determined that the blockage of the FOIA requests was a crime but beyond the statute of limitations. The release of the same information that was a crime to not release I would feel would not be a crime.
***************
Actually no such determination has been made, certainly not for the bulk of the material (the statement by the ICO referred to by the BBC re one of the FOIA requests can’t be found on their site and no official determination has been posted). It’s not true that there is no right of privacy at a British university. Whoever released the information did not have the right to do so so a crime was committed. British law on whistleblowing would not cover this activity, and in any case would not absolve someone from breaking a law.
Phil,
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you probably shouldn’t be giving legal opinion without having read the law in question. PIDA in the UK is probably the most wide reaching FOI legislation around. A couple of tidbits from http://www.pcaw.co.uk/law/pida.htm (emphasis mine):
…the Act sets out a framework for public interest whistleblowing, which protects workers from reprisal because they have raised a concern about malpractice. Though the Act is part of employment legislation, its scope is wide and no qualifying periods or age limits restrict the application of its protection (s.7).
Only a disclosure that relates to one of the broad categories of malpractice can qualify for protection under the Act. These include (s.1, s.43B) concerns about actual or apprehended breaches of civil, criminal, regulatory or administrative law; miscarriages of justice; dangers to health, safety and the environment; and the cover-up of any such malpractice. Cast so widely, and with its emphasis on the prevention of the malpractice, and with the guarantee of full compensation, the Act requires the attention of every employer in the UK.
…
As the short title makes clear, the Act (s.1 ss. 43E to 43H) also sets out the circumstances where the disclosure of the malpractice outside of the organisation is in the public interest and should be protected. In these provisions, the Act adopts and develops many of the signposts from the common law on whether particular information may, notwithstanding the fact it is confidential, lawfully be disclosed in the public interest. Before touching on the relationship between these new statutory provisions and the common law principles, there are two important points. First, the Act applies to all information, whether confidential or not. Secondly while it draws on the common law, it should be noted that these cases focused on whether the confidential information might itself be published (usually by a newspaper) or disclosed to a regulator, rather than whether the whistleblower who made that public interest disclosure should be protected from reprisal or sanction.
In some circumstances, the Act may impose requirements additional to those in the law of confidence. For a disclosure to be protected, (a) the whistleblower must make the disclosure in good faith; (b) as to all external disclosures, he needs to show some substantive basis for his belief; and (c) as to wider public disclosures – unless there is some legitimate reason why not – the concern should have been raised internally or with a prescribed regulator first. In other respects – such as factors to be weighed in deciding whether a wider public disclosure was reasonable under ss.43G and 43H – the Act requires tribunals to have regard to matters which are also considered at common law. While relevant cases from the law of confidence may provide helpful guidance to tribunals, they are not binding. Indeed the Act only requires tribunals to consider duties of confidence where the disclosure was in breach of a duty of confidence which was owed to a third party by the employer: s.43G(3)(d). For a comprehensive analysis of the case law in this area, the reader is referred to Dr Y Cripps’ monograph The Legal Implications of Disclosure in the Public Interest, 2nd ed. (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1994) and, more generally, to Toulson & Phipps Confidentiality (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996).
So lets see here:
Doesn’t apply to UEA: Wrong – Applies to all UK Employers
Copyright/Privacy claim: Wrong – specifically states that it applies to confidential information
Implied that a crime must have occurred for PIDA to apply (actually this one might have been Bill’s fault): Wrong – concern of malpractice is all that is required
Could the argument be made that if, in fact, this was an employee that did this that they should not be protected? Yes it could, but not for any of the reasons you posit. It would be on the grounds that 1.) there was no valid concern of malpractice or 2.) there is a solid basis to argue that the concern should have been raised internally or to a valid regulator (ICO I would imagine). Given the climate ate EAU/CRU revealed by the e-mails, I don’t think any lawyer would have trouble arguing for whistleblower protection for this situation.
That is, of course, assuming it was a leak. If it was an outsider, I’m not sure what you would call it exactly – interesting question.
…and in case I was too convincing (fat chance I’m sure) I am not a lawyer and you’d be an idiot to consider what I just wrote as valid legal advice – just my reading/opinion of the statute in question.
DJ Meredith (20:07:02):
Norfolk Constabulary is probably pretty excited about putting on the SWAT gear, pouring a cup of tea, sitting down and sending out some emails.
Spewing on keyboard laughing, another valid uptake. HAHAHA!
Makes me think of Noddy Book Four, Mr. Plod, (the cop), Mr. Big (was it? Been too many years, the white haired old guy) and all those darned Golliwogs. Not to mention poor little Noddy and his parp parp..
When I was at school in Norfolk, I and two others were apprehended by the Norfolk Constabulary riding our bikes back to school with a single tail and front light between us. A mere three weeks passed before a summons arrived, resulting in my appearance in the Cromer Magisrates’ Court, and a fine of 10s. They seem to have slowed down a lot…
Question: If the statute of limitations has already expired for prosecuting the unlawful conduct of Phil Jones/CRU, when will the statute of limitations run out for the leaker/hacker? It should be any day now, right? 🙂
Don’t respond to idiots!
[keep that disgusting distorted leftist propaganda to yourself. ctm ~ a not-self-hating jew]
LOL! I can’t wait to read the extradition order. As I recall, our country was founded because of such over reaching b.s.
NickB. (20:39:12) :
Thanks for your concern. Whistleblower legislation addresses reprisals by employers it does not protect someone who breaks a law in acquiring the data from prosecution.
According to a government website:
“Qualifying disclosures
To be protected as a whistleblower you need to make a ‘qualifying disclosure’ about malpractice. This could be a disclosure about:
criminal offences
failure to comply with a legal obligation
miscarriages of justice
threats to an individual’s health and safety
damage to the environment
a deliberate attempt to cover up any of the above
There are some disclosures that can’t be qualifying disclosures. You won’t be protected for whistleblowing if:
you break the law when making a disclosure (for example if you signed the Official Secrets Act as part of your employment contract)
the information is protected under legal professional privilege (eg if the information was disclosed to you when someone wanted legal advice)
Protected disclosures
For your disclosure to be protected by the law you should make it to the right person and in the right way. You must:
make the disclosure in good faith (which means with honest intent and without malice)
reasonably believe that the information is substantially true
reasonably believe you are making the disclosure to the right ‘prescribed person’
If you make a qualifying disclosure in good faith to your employer, or through a process that your employer has agreed, you are protected. You should check your employment contract to see if your employer has set out a process for whistleblowing.
If you feel unable to make a disclosure to your employer then there are other ‘prescribed people’ you can make a disclosure to. If you are unsure, you should always get professional advice before going ahead. Anything you say to a legal adviser in order to get advice is automatically protected.
You could make a qualifying disclosure to the person responsible for the area of concern to you. For example, you might raise concerns about health and safety with a health and safety representative.
In some circumstances you may be able to make a disclosure to someone who isn’t prescribed. More information on prescribed persons is contained in the ‘blowing the whistle on workplace wrongdoing’ article.”
Note that distributing the information on the web doesn’t constitute a qualifying disclosure.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/Whistleblowingintheworkplace/DG_10026552
Sorry about that CTM, I should have been a little more sensitive.
Reply: Really? That’s your response? I wouldn’t allow such offensive crap to be posted against any group, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Shakers, even Michael Mann. Since it is policy for moderators not to express opinions political or otherwise in inline comments you will be spared a long diatribe about your political beliefs or how you acquire them. ~ ctm
Mods, I’m going out, please keep an eye on Michael.
Okay this story has been at the top of WUWT for like 7 hours now. CTM, I’m sure we all feel your pain but can we now switch back to our regularly scheduled programming of clouds, climate, weather, and the models that created them? Oh wait, models can’t make clouds yet… nevermind.
Instapundit, law professor Glen Reynolds, once warned that no one should ever undergo questioning by a police officer without a lawyer present. It’s good advice, no matter how innocent you are.
The person who released the information deserves a Nobel prize, not jail, for saving the world. Lord Monckton had it right. We were a hair’s breadth away from ceding national rights to an ultra leftist global government that would transfer the wealth of western nations to corrupt third world dictators. Thanks to this hero, the utter depravity of the warmists was revealed at the very moment it would do the most damage.
[keep that disgusting distorted leftist propaganda to yourself. ctm ~ a not-self-hating jew]
Oh dear, was somebody quoting Chomsky again?
Reply: Very funny, close but worse. ~ ctm
This is good because I am very immature for my age. ~ ctm
At a party one night a very good friend was asked, ‘Well what do you want to be when you grow up’? After about 30 seconds he responded – ‘Old age pensioner’
51? You don’t look a day over 30!
Really Charles, I know this is not the forum for the sort of stuff I tried to delve into. My esoteric interests can be pretty heavy. I won’t, let it happen again here. Please accept my apology. One battle at a time.
What’s the old joke “neither drink, Norfolk”
(something like that anyway).
How did the the Norfolk Inquisitor obtain your email?
CMT
You may need to brush up on Letters rogatory. Note particularly:
You may need to ask Rumpole’s assistance.
Phil,
You might be the most creative reader I’ve seen.
Whistleblower legislation addresses reprisals by employers it does not protect someone who breaks a law in acquiring the data from prosecution.
The law states makes absolutely no reference to the manner in which the data is acquired – true – but you are assuming that a crime was committed for said employee to access the data itself (i.e. breaking into another employees computer, for example). This is, at best, a stretch of the imagination and by no means a given… and the fact of the matter is that in a whistleblower situation, the government will not typically, if ever, prosecute the manner in which the information was obtained (assuming it could even be proven forensically). For example, “taking” a stack of papers is protected, breaking into someone’s office to take it is where it gets a little shady.
The act of releasing said data is, most assuredly protected unless it is illegal to disclose the information. I’m not sure if you intentionally misquoted/misread/mis-emphasized it or not, but the following…
There are some disclosures that can’t be qualifying disclosures. You won’t be protected for whistleblowing if:
you break the law when making a disclosure (for example if you signed the Official Secrets Act as part of your employment contract)
the information is protected under legal professional privilege (eg if the information was disclosed to you when someone wanted legal advice)
…is clearly describing specific legal obligations to the information being disclosed. For CRU this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. There are no state secrets in play and unless the leaker obtained this information through being Phil Jones’ lawyer, doctor, or clergy (in which case he wouldn’t be an employee anyway), this caveat does not apply.
Finally to your last point, from the brief portion of this handbook/guide/FAQ that you cite – which is not the actual statute verbiage – it could be assumed that public disclosure is not allowed. Again your interpretation is patently wrong and possibly a willful misrepresentation/misquote. The guide links to criteria for releasing to “others” whereas the statute refers to a “wider public disclosure”. Releasing to the internet would fall into the third – internal, regulator, public – category and as I originally posted, that does not automatically qualify it (there are standards outlined in the law, as previously described and are the highest for a public disclosure).
Are we there yet?
Careful … Norfolk police are fearless, just check out how they handled Alan Partridge with the traffic cone theft incident.
Good luck
Andy
So the inquisitors won’t contact the “deniers” when it concerns direct info related to the blocking of the FOI requests or the scientific disputes involved, but have no problem finding us concerning the e-mails that were apparently left on an unsecured server…..
I’m almost surprised.
Re: Atomic Hairdryer (Feb 25 15:54),
Yep, Norwich is not exactly a hot bed of crime, once you have been there most people want to get away from it… I think the most excitement previously at UEA occurred when Kenneth the Gerbil got elected to run the Student Union…
The law enforcement authorities in the UK are actually behaving quite reasonably and compentently in this, contrary to some overwrought postings here and elsewhere.
There is no public safety issue. There is no violent criminal at large. There is no large monetary loss, no drugs. The material is out there, you cannot get it back. They are grinding their way through it with the level of priority any reasonable police force would give to it. From what one hears and reads of their communications with people who they think can help with the investigation, they are being perfectly polite and straightforward and matter of fact about it.
And the Norfolk police are a perfectly competent lot, they are neither conspiring against civil liberties nor are they rural yokels, as the overwrought postings imply. They deal with a couple of active ports and several cities, including Norwich. They’ve plenty of experience of all kinds of crime.
Bear in mind that the UK does have a serious domestic extremism issue. You just have to list the stuff to see it. Irish terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Animal Rights direct action, demonstrations against the various International economic summits held here, environmental direct action (for example against Kingsnorth, urged on by Prof Hanson).
Any reasonable person looking at all this would conclude that when the emission reductions which the government is now committed to start to bite, the potential for it turning to violent confrontation between rival groups of nutters is fairly high. Leaks of data may be trivial, but what its part of is not particularly trivial.
My opinion is that the Norfolk police are doing and will do a decent investigation with a level of resourcing that is appropriate to the importance of the issue, and that denigration of them and the investigation by people most of whom live several thousand miles away and have never been anywhere near Norfolk is really pretty stupid stuff. As for what CTM should do, he should make sure he really is talking to the Norfolk police, but then he should just talk to them. Why ever not?
poor mr plod is likely to remain a constable if he poesesses so little knowledge of the law that he has construed what happened at crm as “theft”, the defintion of which includes “with the intention of permanently depriving the other [person]of [property]”. it may have been a crime, but it was not, and could not be, theft.
cedarhill,
On a technical note, sending an email will not give away your computers mac, as you will be going through several routers. It is unlikely to give away your IP address, as few of us have fixed addresses nowadays, and because the mail will be sourced by your ISPs mail server rather than your PC. You could set up a hotmail/gmail/yahoo account just for talking to him. Then you can see who he has shared your email address with.
Reply: I’m not hiding. My identity is public knowledge and any law enforcement agency can find my location in two minutes. ~ ctm
Phildot, I think you need to think a good bit more about what law you think was broken here. It’s not nearly as clear as you think. Copyright law doesn’t really work; copyright is meant to apply to someone who takes the work of another and appropriates it as his own, especially for profit. However, copyright does not necessarily apply to someone who simply makes a copy of an e-mail and releases it into the wild, so to speak, with no intent at making profit or gain for himself. If this was a piece of music or art then the creator could seek damages based on the potential economic loss he or she suffered by not being able to sell the work himself (that’s the case the RIAA has been making against people) but that doesn’t apply to a piece of writing with no commercial value. (like a personal e-mail) Remember that copyright law is civil law, not criminal law, so a lawsuit is the only remedy, and economic damages must be shown.
Likewise the Data Protection Act of 1988 doesn’t apply either – that is meant to help a person control their own personal information when it has been collected by a corporation. Not what’s going on here.
Theft laws don’t apply, because the originals weren’t physically taken, they were just duplicated electronically, and no economic loss was suffered by the original owner.
Even the UK’s hacking law may not apply, since that is meant to apply to DOS attacks and other incidents that are “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.” Simply copying e-mails doesn’t qualify. I considered a violation of the Computer Misuse Act of 1990, which criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer; but this is where it matters whether it was an outside hacker or an inside leaker. An inside leaker who had authorized access to the computer in question cannot be prosecuted under this act.
So what law do you think was broken here? Be very specific, please. I know this will surprise you, but you need to look closely at what the applicable law *actually* says, not what you think it says.