A few thoughts on the points raised by Aiden (in the same order as Aiden's)

1) Agreed.  Asking for town + postcode is the same as asking for full
address.  Whether this is asking for acceptable or 'excessive' data will
depend largely on the stated purpose of the visitors book (see below)

2) Using the visitors book for security reasons could be problematic unless
this potential use was made known to the visitor before signing the book.
There may also be a need to add this use to your institution's notification
to the Office of the Information Commissioner.  This may sound  draconion
but what if your organisation issues fines to people who fail to return
borrowed resources or who have not paid a reprographics fee.  The debt
collection is handled by an external agency to whom you pass the defaulters
details (as gathered from the visitors book), the debt collection agency
then pass those details on..........

3) No, DPA does not stop organisations from ensuring the security of their
property, it just regulates how this can be done for everyone's benefit.
Installing hidden CCTV cameras trained on every desk in the searchroom may
well help catch criminals, but would it really be ethical and acceptable?

4) Even from an archival point of view it surely again depends on what the
purpose of the visitors book is.  If it records the details of past
enquiries and the sources consulted, maybe, but if it is little more than a
tally chart for fire regulation purposes does it really justify long-term
retention for historical purposes?

5) 'Fraid I wasn't entirely sure what was being said here.  What I can say,
as an archivist and a data protection officer, is that in my experience the
Act has made a tremendous difference to the way people within organisations
treat information.  They now have a new found respect for it and
appreciation of the need for controlling its creation and use in a way that
was pretty rare to find before the Act.  Surely this must be a good thing
for ensuring the creation of an 'records-aware' environment and thus the
future of archives.

Steve Bailey
Team Leader - Archives & RM
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of HE

-----Original Message-----
From: Aidan Jones [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 August 2001 08:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Data protection and visitors' books


Several of the answers to this posting contained ideas where I failed to
follow the reasoning:

(1)  What is the point of asking for a town plus a postcode, rather than for
a full postal address?   Apart from the record office losing other possible
advantages, a third party would probably still find a postcode sufficient
to identify and to make (welcome or unwelcome) contact with other readers if
they really have a mind to do so  - particularly if they know how to use the
Internet.

(2)  Why should anyone assume that the only purpose of the signing-in book
is to compile anonymous statistical data?    Doesn't it have at least a
limited role in enhancing (I do NOT say guaranteeing) the security of
documents and printed sources in the record office?   Many offices have
quite valuable printed items on open shelves.  Couldn't it be used to
contact readers (in suitably diplomatic terms) if one suspects that they
might have innocently misfiled an item?  [I've known that happen - with
successful results.]  Or to contact potential search room witnesses if  one
suspected that something more sinister had occurred?  [I've never known this
happen, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.]    Are not the details in the
visitors book an aid to spotting when  people have changed their address,
but have not had it recorded on their ticket?   Isn't it ever useful to know
how to contact an enquirer if additional material on their special subject
comes to hand after their visit?

(3)  Does the DPA really prevent us from using our own discretion about
sensible terms and conditions for access to the search room?   If  we feel
fuller details contribute towards the security of the records for the
benefit of all, why should the law seek to intervene?   Have any searchers
ever raised serious objections?  (And even if they ever did - couldn't we
think of alternative ways around the occasional difficulty?)

(4)  Shouldn't  Archive Services preserve for posterity the archives of the
Archive Service [if you follow me], rather than be throwing them away once
they have served their immediate purpose?   I've certainly heard differing
views as to whether (after a few years) record offices should retain or
should throw away their completed search room registers and historical
enquiry files.  But personally I would be inclined to keep them - partly to
set a good example to other organisations in looking towards the very long
term.

(5)  I may possibly not be alone in wondering whether the combined effects
of FOI and DPA will invariably be beneficial to the long-term maintenance of
archives, or whether they will always provide a consistent and rational
basis for what records should or should not be shown to the public.  If
anyone feels able to provide reassurance on this point, it would no doubt be
welcomed.

Aidan Jones,
Cumbria Record Office & Local Studies Library, Barrow.