Private investigators often use devious, and some say illegal, methods to gain information about their prey. JOHN FLINT reports:
21aug05
PRIVATE investigators no longer need to trawl through rubbish bins.
Armed with clipboards, mock questionnaires and bogus ID badges, they pose as market researchers to get the lowdown on their prey.
The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of a questionnaire used by a large Perth-based private investigation firm to elicit personal information from people under surveillance – most often workers' compensation claimants.
The questionnaire can save investigators hundreds of hours of sitting in a car outside a subject's house. For example, finding out where and when they do weekly grocery shopping can set them up to be covertly filmed.
A former investigator, who spilt the beans on the subterfuge, said he left the industry because he was disillusioned with the underhand and illegal methods used to obtain information and surveillance footage.
"I was meant to be looking for people engaged in fraud, but I was being asked to use fraudulent means to do so," he said. "This was happening on a daily basis."
He said the questionnaire was a blatant form of entrapment.
The yellow, four-page questionnaire is headed "Marketing & Advertising Research Services".
The investigator is instructed to say: "My name is . . . from Marketing & Advertising Services. How are you? Our company is commissioned to conduct research into people's perceptions and attitudes to a variety of subjects."
To ensure they get the right person to the door, they ask: "Is there a (gentleman/lady) available please, preferably in the (20-30, 40-50, etc) age bracket? I am a bit low on numbers for that age bracket for my overall quota. Thank you."
The dozens of questions that follow touch on everything from politics to school education, public transport, occupation and leisure activities.
Although some of the questions are innocuous, others are loaded to provide answers that will give investigators a mine of useful information.
One question asks: "Do you use your own washing machine or a laundromat?" If the answer is laundromat, the questionnaire prompts the interviewer to probe for a location and an exact time.
The investigator is encouraged to probe for details about where the subject's children go to school so that footage of them picking up their children can be obtained.
A question about the respondent's satisfaction with police could easily lead into a discussion about past scrapes with the law.
The Australian Market and Social Research Society was appalled when told about the questionnaire by The Sunday Times.
WA division chairman Nicky Munro said: "I am horrified by it. It is collecting information under false pretences.
"It is totally unethical and it is a direct breach of the Privacy Act. We have a code of ethical behaviour that says that anything that people tell you will not be used in any adverse way against them.
"The Privacy Act specifically states that you have to make people aware of the use that you are going to make of the information that they are providing. We would like to take further action on this."
Sgt Steve Wood, of the WA Police Commercial Agents Branch, which licenses private investigators, said he did not believe the activity was an offence under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act.
"At the end of the day the people are under no obligation to answer questions, whether it's from a legitimate market research company or an investigator who is posing as one," he said.
There were moral problems and possible breaches of other laws that police didn't have responsibility for.
One of Perth's largest private-eye firms, Meridian Services, defended the use of subterfuge, but said it did not use the questionnaire.
Boss Ian French said pretexts were a legitimate tool in certain circumstances, but he insisted his investigators kept inside all the relevant laws.
"Apart from following skills, filming skills and lip-reading skills, there are also pretext skills that an investigator may apply to ensure that he has the correct identification of the subject prior to commencing surveillance or investigation," Mr French said.
"Our people must work within the Surveillance Devices Act, the Traffic Act, the Privacy Act and trespass laws. If they don't, they are dismissed. There's integrity that we must maintain."
Mr French said there were cowboys in the industry, but he denied his company tried to please insurer clients by using unethical means to obtain incriminating video footage, such as letting down car tyres.
"We have put more jobs through in the past week where the film has shown the subject to be genuine than it has shown that the extent of the subject's disability has been exaggerated," he said.


http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/...55E2761,00.html