The Minister of Justice, Emilie Enger Mehl (Sp), is now announcing that the operations centers will be investigated.
Mehl states that there is a need to review the police’s use of social media.
This comes after strong reactions to one Twitter message police posted earlier in March where they stated a street name where they later made a drug seizure in connection with an emergency.
Important tool
Lan Marie Berg (MDG), who is a member of the Finance Committee in the Storting, referred to the previously mentioned Twitter messages in a written question to Mehl.
– Does the Minister of Justice think something should be done with the police’s use of social media, and will she do anything to ensure that the privacy of those who are in contact with the police to a greater extent than today is taken care of ?, Berg asks.
– QUESTION PAPER: Lan Marie Berg asked the Minister for an answer to the privacy issue. Photo: Jonas Been Henriksen / TV 2
–
Mehl replies that she considers social media as an important tool for the police, but that it is now clarified which guidelines apply.
– The Norwegian Police Directorate has also initiated work to review the police’s use of social media with a view to complying with the requirements of privacy legislation, Mehl writes.
Made drug finds
Earlier in March, a private individual reported one Twitter message from the police to the Special Unit for Police Affairsr after they published what the person in question thought was identifying information.
In the case, the police moved out to a dry cooking in an apartment in Oslo.
In a first tweet, the police wrote which street they moved out to. A few hours later, they followed up with a new tweet, in which they wrote that “some drugs had been found, on which a review is written”.
Several lawyers and politicians believed that such incidents could raise people’s threshold for contacting the emergency services, if they have been in contact with drugs.
The Bureau may not comment on reviews provided by individuals.
The operations manager who published the report in question said that the report neither violates the police’s internal guidelines nor violates the duty of confidentiality, in his opinion.
–
