Although the purpose of 'Customer Surveys/Research' may be included in an
organisations Notification and any such research information is published as
statistical data, are we really satisfying the first principle with respect
to consent? Is it reasonable for an organisation to make contact for
satisfaction survey purposes without advising when obtaining, particularly
when some of these surveys are conducted months after delivering the
service?
Alex Mitchell
North Lanarkshire Council
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Welton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 21:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Police Research
All police forces will conduct surveys of this type to test the level of
service provided to 999 callers and persons reporting crimes. Differing
mechanisms might be used. i.e. External or internal researchers and
telephone or letter contact. The type of approach and contact will often
depend on the type of report made or offence reported. Care is taken on
this point with the researchers (internal) being trained and provided with
guidance on whom to contact and how. Am not aware of who uses external
researches or the mechanisms they have to deal with them.
From a DP perspective this work is incorporated within the notified purposes
as
'internal management' and is used to assist the organisation in ensuring it
is correctly delivering the service it is supposed to deliver and identify
methods of improving that service.
The information gathered is produced in
statistical form within the relevant force and sometimes in external reports
as 'customer survey' data, although, where possible, any serious
shortcomings
in service are researched and resolved.
Any perceived DP weaknesses in this approach would be gratefully received.
Ian W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Leon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Police Research
> It would seem to me to be a D.P issue ,in that:
>
> a) The letter was addressed to the "Occupier", which means anyone could
have opened the letter, lets just imagine the person who caused the criminal
damage lived in the same household and was not aware that the other person
had gone to the police, this might of lead to a serious incident. Or maybe
they just didn't want anyone to know you had gone to the police.
>
> b0 The fact that the letter stated, it had "been sent to a number of
people "and was in connection with a certain type of crime "disorder and
anti-social behavior" indicates that that person was targeted from a certain
category.
>
> Asking for an optional name and address at the bottom of the letter, for
further research still does not equate, as they must have targeted the
person from their name and address in the first place!!!, no point asking
for further consent, if they had not given initial consent!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> Paula Leon
> --
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> >>> Krissy Welsh <[log in to unmask]> 30/01/01 10:44:50 >>>
> Just wondered if anyone would like to comment on the following scenario:
>
> Individual rings up local constabulary to report an incident concerned
with
> criminal damage. They provide their name, address and details of the
incident and
> are told to report any further incidents straight away (at which point a
patrol car
> will be sent out).
>
> Approximately 4 weeks after the incident, individual receives a research
> questionnaire addressed to 'The Occupier' which states 'Our records show
that you
> recently contacted the police about an incident of disorder or anti social
> behaviour. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain your views about
the
> quality of the service you received from an officer who visited you
shortly after
> you reported the incident. The questionnaire has been sent to a number of
people
> and is anonymous'.
>
> At the end of a questionnaire is a tick box that states 'if you would like
to take
> part in further research do not forget to leave your name, address and
telephone
> number'.
>
> I am sure that the purpose of this research is to improve the service
that the
> police provide and perhaps I am either highly cynical, highly suspicious
or just
> can't get away from the world of data protection but I would be interested
to know
> if anyone has any thoughts on this (that's the above scenario, not my
state of
> mind)!
>
> Thanks
>
> Krissy Welsh
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
> through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
visit
> http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
> through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
visit
> http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
*********************************************************************
North Lanarkshire Council's Web Site
http://www.northlan.gov.uk/
*********************************************************************
This communication shall not bind North Lanarkshire Council, its
officials or employees and shall not in any way constitute or form
part of a contract. Any view or opinion expressed in this
communication shall not be construed as that of North Lanarkshire
Council.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager - [log in to unmask], or the Help Desk on
01698 302254.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
|