In a message dated 10/07/2000 14:29:19 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Leif Wilks stated "Personal information cannot be held "just in case"".
Surely though if an allegation such as this was to be made then is it not in
the best interests of an organisation to have that information to hand
should the same sort of claim be made at a later stage.
This happens at my Council where a data matching exercise has taken place to
find Council Tax debtors - who may be employed by the Council. They usually
have files on these debtors for historical resons i.e. if there is a known
debtor and the same situation arises then they can request a meeting with
the member of staff should the incident arise again and appropriate is taken
e.g. disciplinary etc. Can ayone advise if they think this procedure is
wrong as even though they once had a debt (it may be cleared) and then falls
into debt again - is that a different scenario and should the information be
deleted after the debt is cleared?
All very confusing...any help would be appreciated.
Doreen >>
I have just created a database and its first entry is you, Doreen, I hope you
don't mind.
This database is a list of all the people who are, or have been, confused by
the advice given on compliance with the DPA98 (or the 84 Act). In order that
queries can be answered properly in a language understood by the people on
this list I will keep the information FOR EVER!!
I will, of course, only use the information for determining the person's
ability to comprehend, but I might also pass it on to other people who deal
with Data Protection queries.
If the person subsequently displays a full and comprehensive understanding of
the DPA . . . .
. . . . tough. The data stays put. Just in case the person has similar
problems in the future.
This is obviously a hypothetical (and pathetic) scenario and I have no
intention of setting up such a database. But in the context of an unproven
allegation or a cleared debt, is it really that different?
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
PS How did you inform your staff that the data matching was going to take
place?
PPS Section 29(3) can only be used as an exemption where disclosure is
required to prevent/detect crime or apprehend/prosecute an offender AND only
where failure to disclose is likely to prejudice those actions. An unproven
allegation is unlikely to prejudice enquiries as they are generally not
acceptable as evidence in a court of law.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|