[log in to unmask] on 09 December 2001 at 08:28 said :-
> Perhaps a
> s55 offence (unlawful procurement) has been committed by the
> representative
> and this might be the only route that could be taken.
I agree in the circumstances described that it is an administrative issue
which foils the effective representation of Jimmy, but is there not a danger
of the DPA itself becoming red tape in the answers so far given.
If an individual expresses a wish, or otherwise makes representation to a
politician or other person of standing to progress their interests in a
particular matter, would that not constitute sufficiently reasonable belief
to meet the explicit consent requirements of principle one in certain
circumstances? Is it always necessary to obtain a record of consent for
sensitive information to meet the DPA requirements, or are we becoming too
sensitive to litigation?
Priniciple one can be criticised as being a particularly weak principle at
times, and the answer I propose could be seen to further weaken it; But are
there not elements within other legal and administrative systems which would
provide additional support to the data subjects rights in the circumstances
described? Surely the DPA does not exist in isolation from other laws, they
to provide protection supporting some of the data subjects rights.
An example of what I am trying to say is where I recently asked a person
purporting to be a barrister, following a first initial telephone contact,
to provide written authority for them to act on behalf of their client, who
happened to be their father. The barrister and client later attended the
organisations premises to progress the matter in question.
1. Clearly the letter of authority was excessive in those circumstances.
2. Had there been a schism between father and daughter it would not have
been.
3. If the initial request had been received in writing, on headed paper from
the legal chambers, it would have been.
The nature, circumstances, persons involved and issues being addressed must
inherently affect any decision on disclosure. The standing of persons, and
legal/professional rules surrounding certain roles (i.e. religious) would
appear to provide additional assurance for meeting the first principle
requirements.
In my opinion each case should be determined on its merits. Although there
are generic rules which can be followed they will not be correct in every
circumstance. What do others think?
N.B. So the wrong conclusions are not drawn from this e-mail. I have no
particular trust of the shadow world of politics or politicians and neither
am I a religious person.
Ian W.
If you hanker after a quite life of distinct and stable universally
applicable scientific rules - ask not to be born.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 09 December 2001 08:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPs after Data Protection exemption
>
>
> In a message dated 08/12/2001 12:01:01 GMT Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
> << 'The Scottish Prison Service has decided that, under the
> 1998 Act, it also
> needs a waiver. In this hypothetical case I shall call the
> constituent
> Jimmy, which is appropriate. Jimmy telephones me from prison
> and asks me to
> get him released for one day so that he can attend his
> aunt's funeral. I
> phone the prison governor and say, "Why won't you let Jimmy out?" The
> governor replies, "I am very sorry, but that is sensitive
> information. You
> must get him to fill in a waiver." I say to him, "You get
> that done." He
> replies, "No, you must do it."' >>
> -----------
> But this is a problem with administration, not with the DPA
> nor the need to
> ensure you have the person's consent for some disclosures.
>
> Imagine giving an MP or a councillor details of an individual
> who afterwards
> claims they did not want the public servant to represent them
> and gave no
> consent for the disclosure. The representative claims they
> were "acting on
> behalf" yet cannot prove it, you were "reasonably assured"
> because the person
> lives in the area covered by the MP/councillor, yet perhaps
> the data has been
> disclosed against the wishes of the individual.
>
> According to the advice given by the OIC the individual would
> have no support
> from her office in respect of the organisation making the
> disclosure, he/she
> would have to pursue that matter themselves, through the
> courts. Perhaps a
> s55 offence (unlawful procurement) has been committed by the
> representative
> and this might be the only route that could be taken.
>
> Perhaps elected representatives might want to look again at
> the issue of
> obtaining consent, just to protect themselves.
>
> Ian Buckland
> MD
> Keep IT Legal Ltd
>
> Please Note: The information contained in this document does
> not replace or
> negate the need for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
> essential that you do not rely upon any advice given without
> contacting your
> solicitor. If you need further explanation of any points
> raised please
> contact Keep I.T. Legal Ltd at the address below:
>
> 55 Curbar Curve
> Inkersall, Chesterfield
> Derbyshire S43 3HP
> (Reg 3822335)
> Tel: 01246 473999
> Fax: 01246 470742
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
> all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
