Duncan Smith wrote:
> The only logical way of staying compliant is therefore to instigate a
> positive response return device to prove that your data subject has read,
> read, understood and agreed to your changes (read-receipt would not
> cut it, as it only indicates read, not read and understood).
I have something of a problem with the requirement, frequently seen for
example on employers' policy statements, that one signs a copy to verify
that they have "read and understood" the document. OK, I read a document. I
gain an understanding from it. So I can sign the copy. How do I, or the
powers that be, know that my understanding is correct? I may have
completely missed the point. Yet I have still "understood" it :)
At risk of being picky, I would also suggest that a "read receipt" doesn't
indicate that something has been read, only that it has been received. For
example, I click on an email. The receipt is sent immediately. On seeing
that the email is lengthy/boring/not urgent/etc I file it for later
reading, or even simply delete it... You might prove it had been read by
asking within the text for the recipient to respond to say they had done
so. But I suspect there wouldn't be many responses!
Taking a snail technology analogy, a variation in contract is frequently
deemed served if sent by post to the registered office of a company. So an
email read receipt is probably about as good as you're going to get in my
view.
Regards to all
Tim Wright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|