Tim
Surely you aren't saying one should ignore the First Principle because some
of the issues are "massive and disputed". I'm intrigued to know exactly what
considerations are included in a Wigan Fairness Moment?
Ian Mansbach
Mansbachs
Data Protection Practitioners
[log in to unmask]
phone: 0871 716 5060
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Turner
Sent: 13 July 2004 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - sharing info
Ian
Because the latter two are massive and disputed concepts, and I have also
heard huge arguments about the interpretation of the former. If you're
suggesting that the majority of DP officers pause before giving any advice
and have the Human Rights Moment, then the Common Law Moment, and then the
Natural Justice moment, and then deliver the advice (all of this on the
telephone), I'm either incredibly in awe of them, or a teeny bit sceptical.
I do consider whether the response to any given case seems fair, but running
through the implications of Natural Justice is a bit much for me on a
Tuesday morning.
Tim
> ----------
> From: Ian Mansbach[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Ian Mansbach
> Sent: 13 July 2004 09:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - sharing
> info
>
> Tim
>
> How can you not include human rights, common law and natural justice
> when considering fairness and lawfulness?
>
> Ian Mansbach
> Mansbachs
> Data Protection Practitioners
> [log in to unmask]
> phone: 0871 716 5060
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Turner
> Sent: 13 July 2004 08:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - sharing
> info
>
>
> I'm probably being argumentative for the sake of it (I don't like
> Tuesdays), but this approach worries me. Either data-sharing is legal,
> or it isn't. Either you can satisfy the DP conditions, or you can't.
> There is no escape from that. Even if you don't ask for consent, you
> may very well have to tell
> people what you're doing or likely to be doing with their data. However,
> to
> start from the presumption that all data sharing must include consent just
> reduces the options. It puts the DP officer in the likely position of
> being
> the person in the room who always says no. In my opinion, there is nothing
> worse for an organisation aspiring to be DP compliant than the DP officer
> being associated entirely with the word "No." If you say no (or 'consent')
> all the time, it doesn't make the organisation more compliant, it just
> makes
> it more likely that people won't ask for advice any more. Besides, consent
> is useless if you don't have the vires to share in the first place.
>
> Is it unfair to suggest that your view is doctrinal - i.e. nothing is
> legitimate without consent? What I took from your answer is that there
> isn't a substantial public interest test, not a formal one. Now, you
> mention "proportionality rules". Where are these rules? If every piece
> of advice I gave had to include considerations of human rights, common
> law and natural justice, I wouldn't leave the house.
>
> Tim Turner
> Data Protection Officer
> Wigan Council
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|