Sir, I am puzzled why Heather Brooke thinks it is “shameful” to protect the anonymity of victims of crime. (Thunderer, June 26 ). She is wrong to suggest that I am opposed to crime mapping, but I am keen to ensure that any scheme gets the right balance between transparency for the public and privacy for the individuals concerned.

I fully recognise the benefits of crime mapping to help police forces identify crime patterns. But the Mayor of London’s proposal raises some privacy concerns which need to be addressed. It is important to get this matter in context: the level of intrusion on some vulnerable individuals’ lives could be far more significant than their child benefit records being lost.

It is sensible to think through what the intended benefits of the scheme are and to weigh these against the potential privacy intrusion involved. A map that shows the crime patterns in a particular area or street may prove highly useful. However, in limited circumstances, revealing even the street where a specific crime took place — for instance where someone has been a victim of racial or domestic violence — could easily lead to the identification of victims who may wish to remain anonymous, particularly by those who are familiar with the area. These considerations should not hinder the benefits of crime mapping as a whole, but we are considering the level of detail that should be placed in the public domain — both of the offences themselves and where they took place. Staff from my office, the ICO, will be meeting the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police to find a workable solution to ensure the benefits of crime mapping can be realised without damaging people’s privacy rights.

Richard Thomas
Information Commissioner

Explore Letters

• Feedback