In message
<[log in to unmask]
nd.gov.uk>, at 07:59:57 on Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Graham Hadfield
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>However, I agree with Ian W that exemptions are not forever.
Agreed. But neither should retention of the data evidencing the law
enforcement enquiry be forever. Why are you still holding *that*? (And
if you destroy that data, there's nothing to disclose on a SAR).
> If, say, the SAR were received after the investigation were concluded
>then there could be no question of it being prejudiced by disclosure
>and so I would not claim it.
It's up to law enforcement to decide if the enquiry is over, and the
disclosure no longer potentially damaging. Of course you can ignore
their advice if you wish. There will be circumstances where an enquiry
has reached a dead end, but alerting the alleged perpetrator to the fact
that he'd been under suspicion would prejudice future investigations.
Many of the same criteria apply to telling people afterwards if their
phone has been tapped (which happens in some countries). Even if no
evidence leading to a prosecution is found that time around, it must
alert some folks to the fact that they should be more careful next time
they use that particular phone line.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|