Police deliver TradeMe private details names to prisoners
The private details of up to 10,000 Trade Me users - described as a "shopping list for criminals" - have been released by police to prison inmates.
Police investigating the so-called terror raids last year obtained the information of the innocent traders as evidence. They then passed the disclosure material to defence lawyers and, in one case, to the prison cell of Jamie Lockett.
One of the "Urewera 16" arrested on firearms charges, Lockett received 16 boxes containing 24,000 pages of information relating to the police case against him, according to this week's Listener.
One of the boxes contained the personal details of up to 10,000 Trade Me customers, including their name, user name, personal email address, phone numbers, home address and trading history over the past five years.
One trader, whose details were passed on to Lockett, recently bought an AK-47 military assault rifle and 100 rounds of ammunition and other firearms, including target rifles.
A mother-of-three, whose trading history includes My Little Pony books and has no connection to the Urewera 16, was horrified her details were in the police paperwork.
"It certainly makes me think twice about Trade Me," she told the Listener. "I can understand the police going for a search warrant, but I think they have given them far too much. I'm quite shocked by it all, particularly the channels it came through."
Trade Me and police were yesterday non-specific over who was responsible for releasing the details of the thousands of innocent traders.
Trade Me security manager Dean Winter said the company had no choice in what information it gave to police. The popular Kiwi auction site was merely a witness in the investigation and had no control over the information once it had been passed on, Winter said.
"We were served with a search warrant, and we complied with the search warrant. We didn't have a choice whether we thought the information was relevant or not."
Winter said it was disappointing the information had been passed on by police to the accused.
"I think lawyers should take more responsibility for the information they receive under disclosure in some circumstances," the former detective said. They need to take responsibility for its security. Handing it on to the accused is a bit silly in some cases."
Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe, of the police Special Investigation Group, refused to comment on what information had been requested from Trade Me and why.
He also refused to comment on why so many traders' details had been requested, thousands of whom are unconnected to the Urewera case, rather than only those specific to the investigation. "We are required to disclose any information that is potentially relevant to a defence lawyer," Pascoe said.
"The rules I am bound by are to ensure we have a trial that is not impacted by a lack of disclosure."
It is standard legal practice for the prosecution to provide the defence with any discovery information relevant to its case.
Defence lawyers are given masses of paperwork from police on behalf of their clients, who also have the right to view the information.
Danny Toresen, chief operating officer of private investigation firm Paragon New Zealand, said that the traders' information could serve as a "shopping list" for criminals in the wrong hands.
An enterprising criminal could copy the information and sell it to underworld figures, said Toresen, then homes could be put under surveillance and burglars could target specific items. "The important correlation in the information is the goods to an address," he said. "As a shopping list, it has value."
A spokeswoman for Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the incident raised "significant concerns" but she would not comment further because the matter was before the courts.
- Source
Posts
4 August 2008 at 9:26 am Here's the automated copied pasted response i got, which doesn't say much. They say 8, the media leak says 10,000 though. They also addressed me by the incorrect name so this email i got doesn't verify they mentioning the right account for trademe (yes i use trademe, who doesn't).
So i replied back reiterating human interaction in a response and also that they actually confirm the right account.
I also mentioned intel agencies, not just police.
Below is there response...
Thanks for your email asking about Trade Me providing information to Police in respect of the “Urewera Raids”.
Late last year the Police served a search warrant on Trade Me requiring us to provide information on people who had traded with eight “Urewera Raid” suspects. We are compelled by law to provide information in response to search warrants so had no choice in the matter.
To be clear, your membership was not involved in this request.
We go to great lengths to protect the personal information of our members, however the Privacy Act 1993 (Principle 11) provides for personal information to be provided in matters related to maintenance of the law by public sector agencies.
If you have concerns in respect of how we have acted in relation to the Privacy Act 1993, you can make a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (http://www.privacy.org.nz).
If you have any further questions or if I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Trade Me Support
7 August 2008 at 12:48 pm A response on Wed, Aug 6, 2008 from the Office of the Privacy Comissioner below...
Dear Sir or Madam
Many thanks for your enquiry and for taking the trouble to write to us.
Like you, we have significant concerns around this situation. This is a very serious matter, and the Privacy Commissioner is investigating further to find out what happened.
As we understand it, around 3,000 Trade Me members have been affected.
Agencies like Trade Me have to comply with search warrants, of course (search warrants are court orders and a person who refuses to comply would be in contempt of court). However, we are trying to find out how information that was apparently irrelevant to the defence ended up being in at least one defendant's hands. We are also investigating whether there is any possibility that the information can be retrieved.
In the meantime, it is clear that anybody who has received the information - even if this was in error - has legal obligations under the Privacy Act to keep it secure, and not to use it or disclose it to others (unless it is information that is genuinely relevant for court proceedings).
The types of questions that you have suggested are exactly the types of questions the Privacy Commissioner will be asking as part of her investigation.
Kind regards
Katrine
7 August 2008 at 12:51 pm My email to trademe since the first comment i made. To note I know no Geoff and nor is there associatation to a 'Geoff' so them labelling later in there email the account holder - Geoff is bullshit simply.
Dear Trademe,
I ask for clarification as this is a template email a friend of mine got and also that my name is not Geoff though you address me as Geoff.
You can address Me as Mr $XYO2 then i know this is actually a legit human response.
You say 8 suspects, so are you denying 10,000 approx private and personal details of memberships to trademe were not breached as the media claim?
theres a difference ratio of 9992 clearly.
Regards,
Pissed Off User
Trademe response....
Dear Geoff,
Thanks for contacting us again regarding this matter.
As stated in our previous email 'To be clear, your membership was not involved in this request'.
Unfortunately I am also unable to address you as 'Mr $XYO2' as all of our emails must be addressed to the account holder, this way a member can be sure the email has been generated from Trade Me.
If you have any further questions or if I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Darren
Trade Me Support