Trevor
Whilst not wishing to stop you in any way being helpful to your hypothetical
PhD student, I think we should be clear as to what the Act requires when
writing a CoP. If the purpose of examining was under way on 23 Oct 1998 then
the transitional provisions can apply. It is your choice. It does not relate
to a specific student but whether or not the data controller was undertaking
that purpose on the specified date. We will all have to address these issues
but I'm not doing it for this examination season!
Dennis Barrington-Light
Trevor Field <[log in to unmask]> on 31/05/2000 08:46:54
Please respond to Trevor Field <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: [log in to unmask] (bcc: Dennis
Barrington-Light/REG/Central-Admin)
Subject: Re: Draft JISC CoP - Examinations
Andrew's draft guidelines on exams will be helpful, notably in providing
"evidence" for disbelieving colleagues as we try to persuade them of the
implications of DPA!
The note about assuming that the Act is fully in force right now is (I think)
the only way in which one can avoid fruitless and possibly damaging arguments
about whether one can technically withhold information. Take a hypothetical
case of a PhD student arguing about evaluation of thesis. Would it be worth
arguing that the student was on-going from pre-98, and that the work in
eventual
thesis was started pre-98, so that the external comments made in (say) 2000
were
therefore part of an on-going process? I doubt it - or if it *were* worth it,
it would probably be because of (or certainly suggest) lack of faith in
comments. No?
So while I have argued for sticking to the Act on various other things, and
not
being press-ganged into early release, I do think that on this one it's
important to get all examiners acting "as if" immediately.
----------------------
Dr Trevor Field
Senior Assistant Secretary
University of Aberdeen
++44 (0)1224 272077
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|