***** THIS EMAIL WAS SENT VIA THE INTERNET *****
Vital interests can be relied upon too. The Commissioner's Introduction to the 1998 Act stated:
"The Commissioner considers that reliance on this condition may only be claimed where the processing is necessary for matters of life and death" but the example given was disclosure of a data subject's medical history to a hospital Casualty Dept when treating a data subejct after a serious road accident.
This is probably open to interpretation.
Dor
Doreen Broom
Access to Information Officer
Scottish Borders Council
Tel: 01835 826516
Fax: 01835 825041
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Hadfield [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 May 2004 15:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Principle 1
***** THIS EMAIL WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET *****
>The interesting point is whether a voluntarily written and unsolicited
letter of >this sensitive nature equates to consent to process/disclose.
If I understand correctly, the data subject (A) has provided the RCGP with
sensitive personal data about him/herself and another person (B). (A) has
not placed any restrictions on prrocessing by the RCGP
Looking at this logically:
(A) has given explicit consent to any processing of personal data in
the letter concerning him/her.
(B) has not given any consent to any processing but might if
contacted
Assuming that processing would be fair and lawful then the Principle
1 requirement is for at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 or
3 (as appropriate) to be met. Therefore, if a condition other than
consent can be met, consent is not needed.
In the particular case, that "The vital interest element is literally life
and death on the part of the data subject", it seems to me that condition 3
of Schedule 3 is met so processing would be lawful.
The overarching guidance, where the situation is not clear, which came out
of the training sessions mentioned in my post of earlier today on
Information Sharing was to answer the questions "What will happen if I do
share?" and "What will happen if I don't".
The consenus of opinion was that we won't get it right every time but that,
where an action is taken which turns out to be wrong in the long run, the
decision to take that action can be defended if backed up by evidence to
show that it was reasonable to do so - the lesser of two evils if you will.
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
********************************************************************
* This email is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. *
* Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its content is prohibited. *
* The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily *
* be the views held by Scottish Borders 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|