----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Cook" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: Re[2]: YOT query
> I'm not sure whether it's me or the rest of the correspondents on this
> subject who are missing the point.
> Consider what is meant by "disclosure". In the example quoted, the
> assumption seems to be that the disclosure will be the whole of the case
> history including the court appearance and sentence (assuming guilt). If
> such an example arose, the appropriate response would be to consider what
> might be the minimal amount of data that could reasonably be disclosed.
> Note the use of the legal term "reasonable".
> Perhaps I an can draw an analogy here. We keep a computer data base
about
> individuals who might pose a threat to a Council employee or Member.
That
> threat might arise from any number of causes. The data is kept by the
H&S
> Officer and is highly confidential. The procedure is that if a member of
> staff is at all concerned about making a home visit, they call the H&S
> Officer and quote an address. His response to the query is limited to a
> simple statement of the risk element, e.g. "advise single females not to
> visit". The reason why this risk assessment has been made is not
> disclosed. The householder might simply be a misogynist or he could be a
> multiple rapist. The point is that the risk has been assessed and a
> measures and appropriate response given. This is "reasonable" in the
> context of the whole transaction.
> To come back to the school example, they could be told by the YOTS team
> that handling money might be problematic without telling the school that
> their pupil has be done for a bank hold-up! Similarly, YOTS could advise
> against working in a APH if the pupil had been mugging old ladies. In
> neither case does the school know anything more than is strictly
necessary
> and the pupil's rights have not been infringed. Not only that but the
> YOTS team has carried out its responsibilities to the pupil and to the
> community at large.
Data which is adequate relevant and not excessive for the purpose it is
provided, with a use known by the data subject, clearly supporting both
sides of the public v private divide. Sounds a good data protection fix.
Timing and accuracy will also be important in such disclosures.
Consider :
Young female receiving malicious, sexually explicit and upsetting phone
calls at home from what sounds like young child. Calls continue over a
period of time. Caller deals in same manner with mother of the house being
called.
Premises phone calls originate from traced. Proof of individual who
originated not yet available. Some information known but disclosure not yet
possible to the victim or the victims school. Victim demanding information,
school wanting information.
Premises phone calls originate from could be home address of offender,
address of friend of offender, or some other premises the offender has
access to.
Only such disclosure as is necessary in order not to significantly prejudice
the apprehension and prosecution of the offender, or prevention and
detection of crime may take place. That information will not be all of the
file but only that which is necessary to disclose in order not to
significantly prejudice...
Timing and accuracy, as well as adequacy, relevance and excessivness are
dealt with in this situation.
As Roger intimates above is it not necessary to remove the emotional values
from all those involved in the situation as a means of reaching a robustly
defendable and DP compliant answer?
Ian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|