i. Knows there is a civil dispute between Aperta & RD
ii. Facts are agreed, RD has come by personal data & notified Aperta & they were to address that. Re-iterates later - no dispute – RD come by personal data & notified Aperta, Aperta are information controller & they should take steps to secure
iii. Aperta have made complaint to computer misuse police team. They are duty bound to make reasonable investigation to satisfy no computer misuse offences
iv. Police have spoken to ICO & solicitors for Aperta – not seen correspondence between Aperta / JMW – been appraised of facts
v. Police at this stage want to confirm identify of Robert Dyke – all they have is email and need DOB, full name and address. The police want to check whether he is a known hacker or cyber criminal
vi. Provided by Aperta email only for RD – Aperta said they did not have RD’s personal contact details
vii. At this stage the Police don’t intend to ask q’s of RD by telephone and don’t need to talk to him – happy to go via JMW
viii. Police have done some initial investigations with ICO
ix. Obliged to investigate – not taking sides. Not saying no criminal offences, looking at case sent to police by Aperta, doesn’t appear dispute between facts. Just want to get details for RD to check who he is.