I see where the argument in (2) is coming from, but I don't quite agree.  If
it were correct, then there is no way you could ever use data for a new
purpose, because you would be caught in an endless loop of not being able to
use it until you told people, but not being able to tell them because that
would involve using it.

I think a common-sense approach is to say 'we have this data, we want to use
it, and we want to comply with our Data Protection obligations as fairly and
effectively as we can'.  You therefore contact the people, tell them what
you are using the data for, and give them easy ways to exercise any opt-outs
they are entitled to.  You could argue that you should do this first, then
write again to carry out the new purpose.  I think (common sense again) that
you do both at the same time, because anyone who doesn't want one letter,
certainly doesn't want two.

The purist line - saying that you can never reuse data for a new purpose
without consent - might be legally watertight, but is, to my mind,
unworkable in practice.

What you mustn't do is hold onto the information without complying with the
fair processing information requirements, because holding the information
equals processing.  So it's more important to tell them as soon as the
unforeseen new purpose comes along (and incidentally to mop up any other
subject information requirements that were legitimately overlooked at the
time it was collected).

Incidentally, now that we are past 24/10/01, transitional relief has nothing
to do with it.  The processing now has to comply with Principles 1 and 2,
which is what we're talking about here, whether it's manual or electronic
and regardless of when or how it was collected.


Paul Ticher
Information Management
0116 273 8191
22 Stoughton Drive North, Leicester LE5 5UB

I hereby require any recipient of this message not to use my personal data
for direct marketing purposes.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart Lynch <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 18 December 2001 11:13
Subject: Re: Help - transitional relief


> Hello Duncan
> 1. Now that we are past the 24/10/01 watershed, as soon as you automate
the
> data, transitional relief is no longer available.
> 2. I think that in the absence of 'adequate fair processing information'
on
> the original forms you would not be complying with the fair processing
code
> if you went ahead with the marketing exercise, even if the mailshot
includes
> fair processing info and an opt-out.  As you suspect, I think the only way
> of complying would be to obtain the consent of each data subject to the
new
> processing purpose.  It might be easier to run a whole new competition -
> please send me an entry form if the prizes are good!
>
> Regards
> Stuart Lynch
> Stuart Lynch Consulting
> Training/Consultancy in
> Privacy/Information Protection
> 01704 870365
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Duncan Smith
> Sent: 17 December 2001 18:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Help - transitional relief
>
>
> One of those lost the plot moments - can anyone help?
>
> I acquire personal data on competition entry forms, the forms do not
> contain adequate 'fair processing information'.  The date of acquisition
> varies from before 24 October 1998 (data set 1) to after 24 October 1998
> (data set 2). Both data sets were obtained before the end of the first
> transitional period.
>
> All the data has now been data entered onto a marketing database from
> which I intend to carry out direct marketing campaigns.
>
> As we are now post 24 October 2001, I lose 'subject information
> provision' transitional relief on the data set 2, but retain relief on
> the older data set 1.  Is this still the case given that all the data is
> now in automated form?
>
> I now wish to use the data for a purpose that was not apparent at the
> time of collection. Do I have to re-consent everybody, or can I market
> to them, providing appropriate 'fair processing information' and
> marketing opt-outs on the mail out?
>
> All of the data was obtained fairly, given the transitional relief that
> was in place at the time.
>
> My primary confusion is therefore:
>
> 1. what loss of (if any) transitional relief occurs in translating hard
> copy data to electronic data.
>
> 2. what action required on electronic data acquired legally, given the
> relief available at the time, but now required for a purpose not
> specified at the time of collection.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Duncan S Smith
> Principal Consultant
>
> "I should have listened to my Mum and done something useful!"
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> gsm: +44 (0)777 556 8180
>
> Company Profiles
> "The process of Improvement"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton
> Antivirus software for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> Company Profiles  Huntingdon UK +44(0)1480  461671
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    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!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^