JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DATA-PROTECTION Archives


DATA-PROTECTION Archives

DATA-PROTECTION Archives


data-protection@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATA-PROTECTION Home

DATA-PROTECTION Home

DATA-PROTECTION  2003

DATA-PROTECTION 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: name & shame

From:

Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:27:24 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines)

Maurice Frankel on 04 February 2003 at 18:51 said:-

"We're probably at cross purposes here. I'm not commenting one way or
the other on the  court's ruling about the anti-crime poster.  I'm
referring to the use that can be made of the ruling itself.  Given
that the ruling must be made public by law, it falls within section
34 and section 35, and is exempt from the non-disclosure provisions,
including Principle 2."


We do seem to have been at cross purposes somewhat.  The necessity to meet
principle 2 is, as you say over ridden by section 34, subject to the
controlling constraints and legal provisions surrounding the rights of the
data subject in any particular context.

To clarify my understanding.  It is that the poster, I assume, will have
been legitimately constructed, after due consideration at the appropriate
levels within the relevant organisations.  Those considerations were then
challenged in a court, which found on the data subjects behalf, stopping the
use of the posters. (I have not seen any information about the deliberations
or arguments involved).  The media then legitimately ran coverage on the
issue, (I will assume utilising section 32) in doing so revealing details,
quite legitimately, of the person in the poster. Not knowing the
circumstances of the data subject and legal issues involved, and not having
any legal qualifications I can only voice my opinion, which is that
principle 2 issues were quite legitimately, totally bypassed.

Being slightly confusted by this the questions which then occured to me on
the balances regarding the data subjects privacy, related to supporting
legal structures (EUCHR and UN Declaration) and legislative compliance.

It is clearly not a simple matter to provide a balanced implementation of
Principle 2 in a free society, as freedoms need defending, come what may.
However the fundamental question revealed by this situation seemed to me to
be very similar to many others which arise.  Can, or; How does a data
subject effectively exercise their legal rights of control of their data?

Kirstys' comments appear to be coming from a similar direction, but focusing
on the purpose the data was collected for originally, (The administration of
Justice) and the subsequent use of that data for other purposes; Which given
the other legislation, and without any consitutional document as a
reference, seems to take one back to the surrounding environmental
legislative framework the laws were drafted within, if any realistic sense
is to be made of them.

Regarding court results.  With the publication of the daily court listings
on the Internet, the technology now provides many people with the ability to
compile or enquire about, should they wish, convictions data.  The purposes
again become very important here, and relate back into this debate on the
effectiveness of maintaining use for purpose.  A currently likely result of
the technological advance and growing practices is that, by default,
convictions data will become fully public material, I suppose it will be
easier that way.  But will all of the legislative framework requirements be
met?

Hope this clarifies somewhat and enables some resolution to the debate.

An example in point which comes to mind is where a professional person who
had some photographs taken for the use of their 'manager' by publishing on
the Internet, later, having changed occupation, wished them not to be used
further.  Could they (as the data subject) legitimately ask for processing
to be stopped?  (No money had changed hands for the photographs).

Ian W

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
      available to the world wide web community at large at
      http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
      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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager