The BBC has this local story:
A former Somerset councillor has been disqualified from holding office after “illegal and pornographic material” was found on his council-owned laptop. Andrew Woolley was elected as a Liberal Democrat councillor for the Lyngford Ward of Taunton Deane Borough Council in May 2007. Due to the nature of the material found on Mr Woolley’s laptop it was referred to the Adjudication Panel for England. The panel ruled that he be disqualified from holding office for two years. …
During the time he was in office he was given two council-owned laptops to help him in his work as a councillor. The board was told Mr Woolley had signed undertakings to adhere to the council’s IT policy for the use of the laptops. When one of the computers was handed back, the council’s IT staff found “highly offensive” material which had been “illegally downloaded”. They also examined a second laptop given to him and found further material allegedly obtained in breach of copyright. The adjudication panel found he had breached the council’s code of conduct by misusing the laptops and acting in a way which could bring him and the council into disrepute.
As he had already resigned, the panel decided to disqualify him from holding office for two years.
A sad story, and one which raises the question: how and when should councillors be banned from seeking public office?
I’m instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of a national adjudication panel deciding whether any citizen can put themselves forward for election as long as they are eligible to stand. Presumably Mr Woolley did not download any material that might be illegal (despite the story’s references to copyrighted material) – if he did so, that is first and foremost a matter for the courts.
There is a genuine question of how to deal with councillors who abuse their position on a local authority – in this case by using taxpayer-funded machines for personal reasons. All local authorities are required to appoint a standards committee with an independent chair – and if any non-elected authority should be able to make these kind of decisions to ban citizens from standing for public office it is surely these local standards boards who can make that judgement?
In any case, it’s hard to imagine a political party putting forward for office a candidate who it was known had been found guilty of bringing ther local authority into disrepute by downloading pornography. To do so would be to invite opposition parties to make it a campaign issue. But, ultimately, so long as the voters have the information in advance, it is up to them who they choose to elect.
Share:
35 Comments
There’s not really enough information to comment in real detail.
If he has violated the usage policy he should be punished in the same way that anybody else would be punished.
There should be no more severe punishment for downloading porn because it is porn, unless there was a more severe offence also involved.
I can’t really say much more unless it is clear what “illegally” relates to – if it something relatively trivial such as simply using Bittorrent, then it sounds overzealous. If “illegal” relates to a type of porn which is “illegal”, then my view depends on which law/offence it comes under – there are some which I think justified and some which are more a result of Government chasing its own tail in a nanny tizzy.
If its illegal, the courts decide. If it is a question of judgement, the people decide. Is this not the sort of thing where Clegg would be giving Joe and Josephine Punter a right of recall if enough of them petitioned for it? I am not sure any wilful misuse of taxpayer funds in the current climate could be described as “relatively trivial”.
You can obtain the actual report here: http://www.adjudicationpanel.tribunals.gov.uk/Decisions/i434/APE%200455%20Full%20final%20decision.doc.
“Obtained in breach of copyright”? That’s not even a criminal offence, it’s a civil matter, and unless they have a verdict from a judge saying that this was in fact not covered by any of the many exceptions to copyright law, it’s not something they should be deciding. Copyright is complicated and requires expert analysis to determine whether a particular case is legal or not. Notably, regardless of what the media companies say, UK law permits the unlicensed creation of personal copies for personal study, non-commercial research, criticism, review, or news reporting.
The report contains this text written by the Standards Committee of the council: “The illegal films were not on general release to the public and therefore must have been downloaded illegally. This was a criminal offence for which both he and the Council could be prosecuted as it was a breach of copyright.”
That is complete nonsense, and an excellent example of why a body such as this is not qualified to decide such matters. It is at most a civil offence to duplicate the material for non-commercial purposes; it is not an offence at all to be in possession of it, and that “not on general release” stuff does not make any sense at all.
However, the ‘porn’ aspect has been played up by the media. If you read the report carefully, the decision was mostly that the councillor had allowed unauthorised people (“his family and relatives”) and unauthorised uses (his niece using Bearshare) of his laptop, for things unrelated to council business, which was a breach of the council’s policy.
This is possibly more concerning than the media story. How many people have allowed a family member to use a laptop issued by their employer for personal matters? This is in breach of the fairly strict policies that most places have, but everybody ignores them because it’s an unreasonable restriction.
>This is possibly more concerning than the media story. How many people have allowed a family member to use a laptop issued by their employer for personal matters? This is in breach of the fairly strict policies that most places have, but everybody ignores them because it’s an unreasonable restriction.
I don’t think that preventing family members using a work laptop is at all unreasonable or difficult.
But I agree the panel have had a bit of a brainstorm by the looks of it.
Compare and contrast to this:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4693321.Bournemouth_council_leader_in_porn_shock/
Haven’t got time to comment in more detail as I’m just about to go out, but in my opinion stories like this involving porn tend to be treated much more seriously than other breaches of conduct. e.g. If a councillor had only downloaded music illegally, would it create a similar hoo-har? I don’t think so.
It’s like when Jacqui Smith’s husband was in the news for the blue movies he claimed. Huge press over-reaction based upon a general prejudicial, immature, prudish view of pornography. It would never have been as big a story if he’d just watched Star Wars at the tax-payers’ expense.
Legal porn is still treated as shameful, rather than looked upon as a person’s individual right to watch/create sexual entertainment. That is wrong.
Part of me thinks that, as a councillor, he should be treated in the same way as any other employee – so if he downloaded something in contravention of the council’s IT policy, then he should be able to be dismissed. However, we don’t really know the significance of the “illegal” material, so it’s difficult to say (the link John Hemming has provided is a bit more clear cut!
I think he was caught bang to rights under the TDBC’s Code of Conduct, irrespective of who used the laptop or whether he’d signed any agreement. We all have to sign our acceptance of our Authorities Code. IN TDBC’s case this included …
“you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute”. … Well, the press interest is certainly centred on this being a Councillor, so it hurts us all. I’ve had 3 e-mails this morning so far pointing the story out to me because I’m a Lib Dem (and therefore either interested or to blame).
“you, must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority:
(i) act in accordance with your authority’s reasonable requirements”…
… well, the Authority’s been clear on the ban of porn at work and the use of laptops by others. After all, a TDBC Councillor might legitimately be able to access a Housing Register, local draft Electoral Register and so-on. Physical security of the laptop is the first line of defence, as a good engineer can get around other means.
Sorry, mate. Fair cop I say.
“Part of me thinks that, as a councillor, he should be treated in the same way as any other employee …”
But as a councillor he wasn’t an employee, he was an elected representative.
My initial reaction is that an employee who had done exactly the same thing with a Council laptop would either have been dismissed or at the very least disciplined within an inch of their lives. Nick has drawn parallels with people fiddling expenses at work who would be sacked but it’s not the case with MPs. To be consistent, I can understand why there should be a sanction.
Having said that, I think employers are possibly over draconian with their policies on these matters – but then again they are presumably wanting to keep their costs down by limiting exposure to viruses and spyware which could cause problems.
I tend to agree that it should be the public who decide whether someone should be disqualified from office if they have voted them in in the first place.
As to porn, I am slightly uneasy about it – sure, I have no objection to people doing what they like in their spare time as long as it’s between consenting adults, but the issue with porn is where did it come from, and were the participants, particularly the female ones, powerful enough to refuse if they wanted to?
So we find the “illegal porn,” probably wasn’t illegal in any sensible way and almost certainly wasn’t particularly pornographic. The take home message seems to be – don’t accept a laptop from the council. The IT departments are incompetent and they’ll forget to provide it for months anyway, the laptops are loaded with so much pseudo security as to be almost unusable and if you take it back for maintenance you run the risk of press releases insinuating you’re a kiddy fiddler. Buy your own.
Meanwhile lets hope someone slaps a libel writ the size of Europe on these cretins.
‘fraid not, we’re talking a black girl with a donkey in the case papers!
Britain is a more puritanical than other European countries. There are certain lines you simply do not cross. Very bad judgement. Rightly disqualified.
I can’t see that there is an issue here. The Councillor in question would have been fully aware that what he was doing was wrong. He got caught; he’s been punished. End of story.
I think he got off very lightly compared to the treatment councillors make sure council officers get when they step out of line!
And any of you who think otherwise ARE NOT LIBERALS at all. Shame on you for your sex-hating attitudes.Grow up.
Just to clarify – I’m not anti-porn, just against male prattery…
http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/4758304.Bestiality_porn_film_found_on_ex_Taunton_Deane_councillor_s_laptop/?ref=mr
He says he didn’t do it. The machine downloaded it for him apparently. On both occasions. Bad luck huh?
It’s been known:
http://www.spamfighter.com/News-13454-Computer-Viruses-Could-Download-Porn-As-Well.htm
.. as far back as 2003 …
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/08/2647.ars
… and was used as a defence in 2001 in the UK.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/technology/11PORN.html?ex=1061179200&en=6224a12a26400866&ei=5062
“While a case that played out in the British legal system sets no precedent in the United States, legal experts say the technical issues raise two troubling possibilities. For one, actual child pornographers could arm themselves with a new alibi that would be difficult to disprove. Or, unknowing Web surfers could find themselves charged with possessing illegal material that a lurking software program has acquired.
“The scary thing is not that the defense might work,” said Mark Rasch, a former federal computer crime prosecutor. “The scary thing is that the defense might be right,” and that hijacked computers could be turned to an evil purpose without an owner’s knowledge or consent.
“The nightmare scenario,” Mr. Rasch said, “is somebody might go to jail for something he didn’t do because he was set up.”
Mr. Green was eventually exonerated, but his life has been turned upside down by the accusations. His ex-wife went to court soon after his arrest and gained custody of their youngest child and his house. Mr. Green, who is disabled because of a degenerative disk disease, spent nine days in prison and three months in a “bail hostel,” or halfway house, and was allowed only supervised visits with his daughter.
“There’s some little sicko out there who’s doing this,” Mr. Green said, “and he’s ruined my life. I’ve got to fight to get everything back.”
He said he had no clue how the rogue software showed up on his computer. “I never download anything. and as far as I knew, no others had,” he said.
When his solicitor, Chris Bittlestone, hired a computer security consultant to examine the PC, nearly a dozen Trojan horse programs showed up on the hard drive. “When the report came in, it was very much what you would call a eureka moment,” Mr. Bittlestone said. But Mr. Green took the news differently.”
Matt
Matt – very interesting – I wonder if there is any way of proving or disproving the allegation from the ex-councillor’s point of view as the laptop is now back in local government hands and presumably the porn will have been erased. Did they alert the police at any point? There seems to be no reference to an investigation in the local rag’s take on it or the BBC Somerset story…
Hopefully the laptop has been handed over to the police and if the ex-councillor is adamant of his innocence he could get the porn investigated to see how it was downloaded – I have been thinking about this – it would be so easy for a fellow councillor to download porn onto his laptop if he lent it to others (as he has said he did). He failed to attend meetings and the local Lib Dem group were anxious to enforce his resignation after all…
Also just re-read the story – and porn was only found on one of two computers lent to him (not both as I had previously said).
Technical proof of who downloaded what how is complicated, which is one reason why I’m so unhappy with paedo-hysteria and all laws based on “possession” on a computer, never mind when the penalties are draconian as well.
And in this situation when the law is a … er … donkey.
Colin W, perhaps commentors here f***ing the standard board up the ar*e could be made into a porn video? Proceeds could go to upkeep of the site.
I don’t watch porn myself (find it a bit crude in general) but I like a well-crafted erotic story. Partial to a nice pair of lesbians I am.
Looks like the comment I replied to is now deleted. It’s a sad world.
Keep dreaming Asquith – I’m sure the lesbians would run a mile from you…
Is one required to use a Council-supplied computer if one is a Councillor? Or is it a perk of the job or something? My paranoia is such that if i were to be a Councillor I would try very hard to avoid using anything provided by “them”! Presumably their IT Department can call in the machine whenever they like? And they decide whether there is anything offensive on it? And all local authority IT Staff are completely politically neutral, are they?
I always wondered whether the bog-standard “delete browsing history” can withstand serious investigation. Presumably not. But when blogging in office jobs I’ve had in the past, I always just used that thinking no one would care enough to check up on blogs I browse provided it wasn’t made totally obvious by having them all there in full view of management.
I don’t blog at work now so presumably I’m free to say whatever I want.
Never went on any illegal websites, & while I’m sure my comments wouldn’t go down well in some quarters they’re not police matters. Not unless Brown gets a 4th term & makes them so, that is!
@asquith
If it was my previous comment I asked them to delete it.
>I always wondered whether the bog-standard “delete browsing history” can withstand serious investigation. Presumably not.
No
. Hence the Rover buyout chappie buying that cleanup package on expenses.
@david
Usually it is a Council laptop because the IT Dept control the environment, and can lock it down a bit etc.
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.
The real issue here is to what extent council staff should be able to look at what a councillor has on his or her computer.
An important part of the role of a councillor is to scrutinise the council. This may involve finding information and making communications which the councillor would for good reasons want to keep confidential. It may be casework in which allegations are made against council employees. It could be a major investigation into large scale fraud.
The principle that what a councillor has on his or her computer is for he or she alone to know is probably worth the possibility that some of them may have a pornography habit they use it for. I would suggest the norm is that the contents are only looked at if there is good reason to believe the councillor has been using it for illegal purposes.
So the conduct of this individual risks the councils compliance with the Data Protection Act, commercial and procurement law and computer misuse legislation. He also risked the operational integrity and probably ongoing negotiations. All consequences of an infection on the system propagated from a single client. In principle the system security mechanisms should trap these things, but in practice so many people breach the rules, as in this instance, that the inherent system security is undermined anyway.
Given that the democratic process doesn’t reward competence, integrity or trustworthiness, merely who has the better PR machine I don’t see an issue with an independent body mitigating the risk.
Given the number of ”personal data” breaches over the last couple of years, I’m somewhat surprised by the number of people advocating letting him off. The nature of the material isn’t too important, the fact that he exposed the council, and by implication constituents, is enough.
@Tony Hill – John Hemming?
“I always wondered whether the bog-standard “delete browsing history” can withstand serious investigation. Presumably not.”
No – and to be honest an empty MSIE cache/web history would usually attract the suspicion of an administrator.
@Matt – that report seems far from conclusive on the point though. Has a trojan ever been identified that downloads illegal child porn images. If one were to be written there would certainly be little point in making it do something as obvious as change the wallpaper. In any case as it was a council laptop it should (maybe a big assumption!) have had upto date anti-virus/spyware/firewall etc
@Hywel
>Has a trojan ever been identified that downloads illegal child porn images.
Two recent cases here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/09/malware_child_abuse_images_frame_up/
And background here:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me
>@Matt – If one were to be written there would certainly be little point in making it do something as obvious as change the wallpaper. In any case as it was a council laptop it should (maybe a big assumption!) have had upto date anti-virus/spyware/firewall etc
The further issue not raised is that a Council may well be liable, depending on the level of management of the PC. If someone run across dodgy stuff on a council PC etc there may well be a case for “they didn’t manage it properly”; it’s the sort of thing where a settlement out of court may be possible. That may be another reason why use should be restricted stricly to the Councillor/Employee.
Matt
@Hywel, the problem I had with my council laptop was that the anti-virus software got it’s updates via the council network, which was only achievable by using the laptop in the council building. Remote access was done via Citrix, which doesn’t allow the anti-virus to connect to their servers.
What a load of old tosh. Harry Cohen MP has spent loads of time watching porn when not fiddling his expenses and no-one has banned him from the gravy-train.