I can quite understand why the Act has been framed in such a way that
non-disclosures do not have to be admitted to - and why it is good practice
to inform data subjects wherever possible. It is very similar to the public
interest test under FoIA ,as applied to confirming or denying that the
information is held, - though not spelt out so explicitly in the DPA.
On the occasions when we have had to withhold information we have always
told the data subject why. However, if it were a case where our Trading
Standards people (for instance) had obtained personal data in order to
prosecute an offender I doubt very much whether I would say "I have
withheld certain information held by the Council using the powers provided
to me by Section 29".
Regards,
Graham
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|