FUJ00156112
FUJ00156112
From: Butts Geoff[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BUTTSG]
Sent: Mon 15/02/2010 11:58:42 AM (UTC)
To: Jenkins Gareth Gl[Gareth.Jenkin:
Subject: I FW: Track 2 Data Solution
Attachment: PSO_FSL_CRO1762_FS.doc
Attachment: REQCUSFSR0001 v0.3.doc
Attachment: Eliminating Track I! from historical Audit log. rtf
FYI.
Regards,
Geoff
Geoff Butts,
Programme Manager, HNG-X Release 1,
Royal Mail Account
Practitioner, P&2PM Academy
FUJITSU
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Kirkham Suzie
Sent: 11 February 2010 17:14
To: Butts Geoff; Clark Jason; Welsh Graham; Lillywhite Tom; Worrell Jeremy; Prenovost Jean-Philippe
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan
Subject: RE: Track 2 Data Solution
Geoff
The CR you refer to and as attached asked for the following change
“Fujitsu are requested to document a proposal that addresses how Track II data can be removed from the Historical
Audit logs. The solution must consider the impact on prosecution cases and how we can “prove beyond reasonable
doubt” the data can continue to be used as evidence in court”
I have attached both the CR and a copy of Jim Sweetings document.
FUJ00156112
FUJ00156112
The response has not been submitted to POL due to the outstanding query around the second half of the requirement -
the position with prosecution cases. We have sought legal advise (Jean Pierre Prenovost who works for David Jones
in our Legal Department) has been in discussion with POL legal (Hugh Fleminton). The general position is that if we
remove the Track 2 data from the Historical log we will not be able to state that the data is a correct and true record of
the electronically generated data as it has been changed in some way at a later date. This would mean we could not
state that we can “prove beyond reasonable doubt” the data can continue to be used as evidence in court”
This therefore raises a question over the integrity of the data.
I have also attached an email JP sent to David Gray on this issue. JP has been in further discussion with Hugh today
to try and resolve this issue
Jean Pierre — please can you send some words that we can insert into our technical response that clarifies our legal
position so that the technical document can be submitted.
Kind regards
Suzie
Suzie Kirkham
Account Manager
Royal Mail Group
FUSITSL
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does
not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free
From: Butts Geoff
Sent: 11 February 2010 16:52
To: Clark Jason; Welsh Graham; Kirkham Suzie; Lillywhite Tom; Worrell Jeremy
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan
Subject: Track 2 Data Solution
Importance: High
All,
I was given an action from the HNG-X Release 1 Joint Progress Meeting to chase up the completion of a CT to send
to Post Office for our proposal on Track 2 Data.
lan Trundell has requested that this CT (in draft form if necessary) is sent to him and copied to Mark Burley by end of
play, Monday 15/02/10. Jason is working on this. I understand the solution that Jim has described so far proposes a
solution in 3 stages comprising:-
1. Proof of Concept to sanitise audit data
2. Proof of Concept to store the sanitised audit data
FUJ00156112
FUJ00156112
3. Development of the full solution
I understand the total cost of the Proof of Concept is to be capped at £50k and the full solution an estimated additional
£250k (to be confirmed by the PoC).
lan’s assumption is that the Post Office legal team will approve the principle that “sanitised” or “obfuscated” data with
an audit trail of how it got to this position from the raw data is admissible evidence for legal cases, although he has yet
to receive formal feedback. Is Fujitsu’s legal team supportive of this approach? If not, then it sounds as though our
overall solution needs to be revised and the CT will be invalid.
I want to ensure that we are joined up, so please advise if anything I’ve stated is incorrect.
Thanks.
Regards,
Geoff
Geoff Butts,
Programme Manager, HNG-X Release 1,
Royal Mail Account
Practitioner, P&2PM Academy
FUJITSU
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 38W
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.