BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

Edinburgh: Foundation
3, 4 & 5 Oct

London: Practitioner
Starts Nov 13

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts Oct 11

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Nov 27

Training/Update/Events
Update: Nov 20
GDPR: Sept 12 & Oct 6
PIA: Dec 12
DP Audit: Dec 14

Amberhawk

« Breach of a Principle? Then expect the CEO to sign an “Undertaking” | Main | ICO concerned that DNA retention law neuters four data protection principles »

18/02/2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Certainly thought provoking. One thing did occur to me though is that irrespective of what the Government states not all currently valid passports hold a chip - for example my own which has another 3 years left before it expires doesn't have a chip.

So it's entirely feasible that the passports used on this occasion also didn't contain chips - and that's probably even more likely if the passport was issued locally by a British Embassy or High Commission.

So I think I would want to know about the actual passports used in Dubai.

If the passports didn't have chips then the government might argue that a chipped passport would have prevented this abuse.

Note added by Chris Pounder

The Foreign Secretary has staed in a news interview that his information is that the passports are not biometric passports. He confirmed that the integrity of the UK passport system was of serious concern and was being investigated by police from SOCA.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.