[log in to unmask] on 16 September 2004 at 20:09 said:-
> Can someone explain to me why we needed the DPA 98 when the 84 Act
> sufficiently to cover this situation.
Clearly the protections provided are useless if there are ways of working
around them.
The (EU convention)DPA 1984 was updated by the (EU Directive)DPA 1998 as a
means of dealing with the open abuses which were then occurring and
repressing the benefits to be gained from computerisation.
Unfortunately, either the drafting of the DPA 1998 was not sufficiently
clear, or the subsequent court cases have misinterpreted both the wording
and the spirit of the act.
The public sector could possibly rely upon the national classification
system to rectify the situation in some areas, but that would seem to be
moving towards a method of masking/hiding mistakes behind secrecy, a very
unhealthy result.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 16 September 2004 20:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Extreme example
>
>
> In a message dated 16/09/04 19:32:52 GMT Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > The example I gave was drawn from an actual incident many
> years ago (DPA
> > 1984 period) where the hard copy file found contained old
> computer printout
> > (the records having been weeded from the computer many
> months before). When
> > then considering that some computer printout on its own,
> taken out of the
> > context of its original data holding, where the paper copy is not
> > specifically focused on the individual, could now fail to
> meet the personal
> > data test, the example seemed relevant and certainly is extreme.
> -------
>
> Even if there is focus on the individual, if it is no longer
> held in the
> computer, it may not be personal data - according to the Johnson case.
>
> In reality, if personal data is held on computer it is likely
> to be caught by
> the DPA. If at some stage it is printed off and placed in a
> manual file,
> then deleted from the computer, it is likely to fall outside
> the scope of this
> law.
>
> Can someone explain to me why we needed the DPA 98 when the 84 Act
> sufficiently to cover this situation.
>
> Ian B
>
>
> Ian Buckland
> Managing Director
> Keep IT Legal Ltd
>
> Please Note: The information given above does not replace or
> negate the need
> for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
> essential that you do not
> rely upon any advice given without contacting your solicitor.
> If you need
> further explanation of any points raised please contact Keep
> I.T. Legal Ltd at
> the address below:
>
> 55 Curbar Curve
> Inkersall, Chesterfield
> Derbyshire S43 3HP
> (Reg 3822335)
> Tel: 01246 473999
> Fax: 01246 470742
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|