1. Employees were informed through payslips...statement issued to that
effect and I believe it is perfectly in order - discussions took place with
the Unions beforehand and all was agreed.
As to your hypothetical database, I take your point but what about
information being accurate and relevant - a data subject can ask to have the
data amended/deleted etc. Really, I am talking about keeping this
information on files.As Leif stated - how long do you keep files for...every
Department is different as far as my Council is concerned - Social Work -
adoption papers - 90 years - Education 30 years - Finance 8 years - no
wonder we are all confused..we are all new to this and as Phil Boyd said
whilst he was up here last week - the Act will have to be tested before we
know where we are as has been the case with the 84 Act!
Doreen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 July 2000 15:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Alleged Sexual Harrassment - DPA Exemption
>
> 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.
________________________________________________________________
This e-mail is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily
be the views held by the Scottish Borders Council.
_________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|