There is, of course, no need for archivists to worry about retaining defunct
electoral rolls. Sec 33 (3) allows their retention: 'personal data which are
processed only for research purposes in compliance with the relevant
conditions may, notwithstanding the fifth principle, be kept indefinitely'.
But it might be that, in order to comply with the relevant conditions,
practices which grew up many years before DPA was even a glimmering of a
twinkle in legislators' eyes, need to be changed. Sec 33 (4) states that
'the results of the research or any resulting statistics are not made
available in a form which identifies data subjects'.
For people studying family trees, this is a clear problem. It's ok, of
course, if they keep their findings to themselves, but that is not the aim
of many family historians today. Data is shared widely.
So, in order to keep defunct electoral registers, archivists must take
reasonable precautions to ensure that the research using them complies with
the 'relevant conditions'. The 'relevant conditions' are, among other
things, that research only complies with the Act if the results of the
research are anonymised, or not shared.
Archivists therefore need some mechanism to ensure that researchers are
aware of their obligations under the Act. It suggests to me that family
history research using the electoral registers, where those registers might
include living people, is not compliant with the Act except under very
restricted circumstances which effectively make the research valueless for
the researcher. There is a strong argument for saying that family history
research (and other research which depends on identifying individuals)
should not be allowed.
The practice of assuming a lifespan of 100 years means that registers older
than 1924 (100 years less 21 age of majority, subtracted from the current
year) can be used freely with a tiny risk of contravening the Act. After
that date, however, there's a problem that archivists need to address.
Christopher Webb
Borthwick Institute
St Anthony's Hall
Peasholme Green
York YO1 7PW
01904 642315
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Roy Morris
> Sent: 06 June 2003 15:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Disclosing the electoral register
>
>
> Ian,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> The old style reference was relating to the pre-edited version.
>
> Historical copies of the registers are retained in our Records & Research
> archives office. They have been allowing access to files for family tree
> research.
>
> Having spoke with the IC's office, they advised that use of the
> register is
> permississible for research purposes (under DPA Section 33: Research,
> history & statistics). As long as the curent version is not made
> available,
> it is permissible to disclose previous versions for these purposes.
>
> Are other authorities allowing open access in these circumstances?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 06/06/2003 14:35
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Disclosing the electoral
> register
>
>
> In a message dated 06/06/2003 11:22:01 GMT Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> If someone goes along to the local library to view the full register are
> there any access restrictions that apply, e.g.:
>
> do they have to be supervised?
> can they make written notes of any part of the content?
> can they review all of the register or only the part that's relevant to
> them?
>
> Also, do any restrictions apply to allowing access to the old style
> register?
>
>
> --------
> As I understand it, the restriction on the use of the full
> register applies
> to the purpose the data are used for, rather than the section of it that
> can be viewed. If a person wants to know that their details are correct,
> they would be pointed in the right direction or could ask that their entry
> be printed out. People from security organisations can view the register
> for crime detection, anti-fraud, etc and can hand write notes from the
> register for those purposes. If the person were not supervised, how could
> the ERO be meeting the legal requirements?
>
> What do you mean by old style register? If you mean old copies of the
> electoral register, I suspect you should have destroyed it by now as it is
> way out of date and does not tell you which people have already opted out
> of the edited register.
>
> Ian B
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|