Identity theft
Dustbin scavengers
The subject of identity theft has become a bigger issue in recent years than it once was. Modern technology, for all its benefits, has made identity theft far easier and more damaging than it ever used to be. We are all advised to shred sensitive documents as soon as they are no longer required, to prevent possible misuse if they get into the wrong hands. Indeed, I remember receiving a letter from Leicester city council pointing out that some people had been seen rummaging through dustbins looking for documents that they might misuse. I assume that everybody living in my part (or maybe all) of Leicester received similar letters. So much for the domestic situation, where we only have ourselves to blame if we don't look after our own sensitive documents, but what about commercial sites?
Industrial shredding
Many businesses have our names, addresses and other information. Do they shred their own documents? Some do, but having been sent on a New Deal placement in which I spent much of my time feeding documents through a shredder, I was horrified but not surprised by what I found. I reported my concerns to the management but they seemed unconcerned and certainly weren't interested in making any changes.
It is clear that many businesses simply parcel up all the documents that require shredding and pay waste-recyclers to do the actual shredding. Other businesses, more conscious of security, do the shredding themselves then pass the shredded paper to the recyclers, who pay them for the shredded paper. The bags of paper to be shredded could easily fall into the wrong hands even before they reach the shredder, but the shredding process itself is hardly secure, if what I've seen is anything to go by.
As I stood (or sometimes sat) at the shredder, feeding in the documents, I had plenty of time to examine them. I could even have slipped some into my pockets had I so wished. Of course I didn't (except for a little book about Manchester United that surely doesn't classify as a confidential document; I kept it and will review it on Amazon in due course although I'm not a supporter of Manchester United or any other club), but I couldn't help noticing that banking, insurance, courts, the tax authority and the NHS were all represented, some in abundance, among the documents that I shredded.
The charity responsible for the shredder has a policy of providing opportunities for rehabilitating criminals into society. Somebody has to provide those opportunities, otherwise those criminals may feel that they have no choice but to revert to their former habits, but should such people be allowed anywhere near such sensitive information? Now, I didn't abuse my position at the shredder, but I neither know who did the job before me, nor who has done the job after me. I strongly believe that a shredder, especially an industrial shredder such as this, should be kept in a highly secure environment. It should not be placed among cardboard balers, can sorters and other machines used to prepare waste for re-cycling, especially as these tasks may be carried out by those criminals who are being rehabilitated.
At work breaks including lunch, the half-empty bag of documents being shredded is often left unattended, so anybody with malicious intent could rummage through it while the person responsible for shredding is absent. Of course, the place is locked up overnight but I don't think sheds of this type are particularly secure buildings.
Shredding paper is labour-intensive and the shredded paper takes up a lot more space than the original documents from which they came so it is, perhaps, understandable that businesses don't want to shred their documents internally, which is much the safest option, but what price security? You don't need to secure empty beer cans but sensitive documents require greater care.
But there's worse to come. Suppose the shredding capacity is insufficient to cope with the amount of paper that requires shredding? It may be very tempting to simply forget about the shredding and process the paper in the normal way. After all, who would be able to prove anything? The alternatives of sub-contracting the shredding and investing in more shredding capacity both cost money. Did I see anything untoward? You might think that but I couldn't possibly comment. Remember that businesses actually pay for the waste-recycler to do the shredding, while they receive a fee for shredded paper, or for documents don't need shredding.
No comments:
Post a Comment