Tim Trent on Sunday, December 07, 2003 at 6:43 PM
> The real question is, what case law is there to back up the
> IC's position? I can see legal argument running for quite
> some time over this if it ever proved germane to either a
> defence or a prosecution.
Looking with a DP perspective there is some case law to assist.
You say "back up the IC's position", you could equally say contradicts it.
Consider the case of the individual who was caught on CCTV in a suicide
attempt, and the episode was shown on the television. The resulting case
they brought found in their favour. Yet there were no identifying details
of the individual given, but they were clearly identified by people who had
the requisite knowledge to do so. One could deal with it from a DP
perspective that the physical appearance was the only matter disclosed by
the footage, one could also say that the psychological state of the
individual at the time was also disclosed. The argument works both ways,
and in my view, both were disclosed.
Example to help make the point.
A female agrees to have a photograph of herself published on the internet to
publicise the escort business she is working in. She later removes herself
from the work but the escort business continue using her photograph on the
internet, which she asks to be removed because she does not wish her child,
who is starting to go on the internet, finding that photograph. Try
explaining to her that a photograph without a name is not personal data, and
that it does not disclose more than merely here physical appearance at that
time.
These issues merely indicate some of the outline between morality and law,
where one is touching closely/overlapping on the other. Technological
advance has increasingly created a necessity for this closeness/overlap, but
it does not simplify the difficulties in legal systems which inherently
normally require a firm generalised framework. The many dimensions of
privacy, (including informational privacy - DP) do not comfortably fit
completely into the current legal frameworks and are known for being hard
cases. Perhaps the IC is being reluctant to make a determination, because
of the hard legal issue, and they are awaiting further indicators of the way
to move - not lead.
Google search. You digress... But material on Google could be likened to a
written description...
If you conducted a search of Google, I would contend that the only material
you had would be unlikely to be just a name, otherwise what would be the
purpose of your search? (Would it be for the same purpose the individual
input the material in the first place?)
And
The information returned by a search would not be merely the name.
On that point your unlikely should be likely.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Trent
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pics!
>
>
> But the data about (eg) you if I have your picture is
> unlikely to come into my possession unless you send it to me.
> So, though I appear to have defeated myself I still contend
> that such data is not likely to come into my possession and
> that I am unlikely to have it already.
>
> Even a search such as
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22ian+Welto
> n%22 reveals 54 possible hits, any or none of which may be
> you. 28 are displayed by google, so there is a 28:1
> probability against any of them being you. Most people would
> not bet on a 28:1 shot, so I argue that "unlikely" carries the day.
>
> Your other points we are in agreement on, I think.
>
> The real question is, what case law is there to back up the
> IC's position? I can see legal argument running for quite
> some time over this if it ever proved germane to either a
> defence or a prosecution.
>
> And the inconsistency of my ethnicity being deduced form my
> picture but the picture being "personal" but not "Sensitive"
> data should be nailed.
>
> ~Picks up lance having found another windmill to tilt at, but
> falls off the other side of the horse having mounted too fast~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Welton
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Pics! (was "Schools etc)
>
> Tim Trent on Sunday, December 07, 2003 at 11:51 AM said:-
>
> > THAT is the point
> [SNIP]
> > What it does not do, without any
> > other information, is to identify that person. I argue the
> same about
> > photographs.
>
> But you defeat your own argument if section 1 is taken into
> account:- Personal data means... (b) from those data and
> other information which is in .... Or is likely to come into
> the possession.... [SNIP]
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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 : -
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list
> please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|