JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DATA-PROTECTION Archives


DATA-PROTECTION Archives

DATA-PROTECTION Archives


data-protection@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATA-PROTECTION Home

DATA-PROTECTION Home

DATA-PROTECTION  2004

DATA-PROTECTION 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Third party response consent. Was - RE: SAR and compliance calendar days

From:

Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:56:43 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (273 lines)

Ian Mansbach on 30 September 2004 at 17:18 said:-

> The position is not much different from that of consent being 
> refused. If
> you have been diligent in seeking consent and you don't get 
> it for whatever
> reason then, unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances 
> to disclose
> the third party data without consent, you are not obliged to 
> provide it. The
> steps taken in seeking consent, whether the third party is 
> capable of giving
> it, and any express refusal to give consent are specific 
> considerations to
> be taken into account in deciding whether it is reasonable to disclose
> without consent. If one has sought consent and nothing has 
> been heard by
> shortly before the 40th day on the SAR clock then it would be wise to
> consider whether it is reasonable to disclose without 
> consent. In that way,
> if you decide it is reasonable, you still have time to comply.

If the SAR clock for third party consent data starts on the date that it was
recognised consent may be needed, and that date was approximately thirty
days down the line from the original start date, it could mean a full
response was not given until as much as seventy days or more after the
request was received.

That seems a very tenuous conclusion to reach from the DPA wording itself,
notwithstanding that the decision on reasonableness could still need to be
taken.

Ian W

> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection 
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 
> Ian Mansbach
> Sent: 30 September 2004 17:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Third party response consent. Was - RE: SAR and 
> compliance calendar days
> 
> 
> The position is not much different from that of consent being 
> refused. If
> you have been diligent in seeking consent and you don't get 
> it for whatever
> reason then, unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances 
> to disclose
> the third party data without consent, you are not obliged to 
> provide it. The
> steps taken in seeking consent, whether the third party is 
> capable of giving
> it, and any express refusal to give consent are specific 
> considerations to
> be taken into account in deciding whether it is reasonable to disclose
> without consent. If one has sought consent and nothing has 
> been heard by
> shortly before the 40th day on the SAR clock then it would be wise to
> consider whether it is reasonable to disclose without 
> consent. In that way,
> if you decide it is reasonable, you still have time to comply.
> 
> Ian Mansbach
> Mansbachs
> Data Protection Practitioners
> [log in to unmask]
> phone: 0871 716 5060
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Welton
> Sent: 30 September 2004 09:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Third party response consent. 
> Was - RE: SAR
> and compliance calendar days
> 
> 
> Ian Mansbach on 29 September 2004 at 17:57 said:-
> 
> > There are a number of possible
> > interpretations as to when information requiring third 
> party consent 
> > must be be supplied. My preferred one is for the clock starting at
> > the same point in
> > time as for non-consent data and ending 40 days therafter or,
> > if later, the
> > day consent is received. My reasoning is that once consent is
> > obtained,
> > relief from the obligation to comply with the SAR granted by s7(4)
> > evaporates. The obligation to respond in respect of the third party
> > information kicks in the moment consent is obtained. Others
> > may, of course,
> > hold different views.
> 
> Surely a strange situation could then arise if no consent were ever
> received; either because the request for consent was not 
> received by the
> third party (out of date address data?) or that the request 
> was ignored.
> 
> What would be the situation of a data controller placed in 
> that position?
> 
> 
> Ian W
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues 
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Mansbach
> > Sent: 29 September 2004 17:57
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Third party response consent. Was - RE: SAR and
> > compliance calendar days
> >
> >
> > My goodness, Ian W, you've made me go search out my old text books!
> >
> > The view is expressed in one of the leading legal authorities, 
> > Rosemary Jay and Angus Hamilton's "Data Protection Law and 
> Practice", 
> > in the following
> > terms:
> >
> > "Where any of the data are third party data for which 
> consent is being 
> > sought for disclosure a separate 40-day clock ticks for that data 
> > only".
> >
> > My understanding is that the proposition flows from the 
> words in s7(8) 
> > "Subject to subsection (4)...".
> >
> > In practical terms, this means dividing the response into 2
> > parts: that
> > which necessitates third party consent and that which doesn't. Each 
> > part needs to be dealt with promptly and, in any event, within 40
> > days. In the
> > case of data which does not require third party consent, it
> > is clear the
> > clock starts ticking on the day the SAR is received or, if
> > later, the first
> > day on which the other criteria are met (fee and information
> > to be satisfied
> > about identity and location of data). There are a number of possible
> > interpretations as to when information requiring third party
> > consent must be
> > be supplied. My preferred one is for the clock starting at
> > the same point in
> > time as for non-consent data and ending 40 days therafter or,
> > if later, the
> > day consent is received. My reasoning is that once consent is
> > obtained,
> > relief from the obligation to comply with the SAR granted by s7(4)
> > evaporates. The obligation to respond in respect of the third party
> > information kicks in the moment consent is obtained. Others
> > may, of course,
> > hold different views.
> >
> > Ian Mansbach
> > Mansbachs
> > Data Protection Practitioners
> > [log in to unmask]
> > phone: 0871 716 5060
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues 
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Welton
> > Sent: 29 September 2004 16:33
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [data-protection] Third party response consent. Was
> > - RE: SAR and
> > compliance calendar days
> >
> >
> > Ian Mansbach on 29 September 2004 at 14:39 said:-
> >
> > > It is believed that information which cannot be disclosed without 
> > > first obtaining third party consent according to s7(4) is 
> subject to 
> > > a separate 40 day period. Accordingly, one should comply with the 
> > > rest of the request
> > > first and then follow on with information for which one
> > > subsequently gets
> > > consent as soon as permission is received for that information.
> >
> > When would any separate 40 day period start from, and what supports 
> > the belief that may happen?
> >
> > Ian W
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues 
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Mansbach
> > > Sent: 29 September 2004 14:39
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: SAR and compliance calendar days
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking at this solely from a DPA perspective, there is a
> > distinction
> > > between omissions from an SAR and rectification of
> > inaccurate personal
> > > data.
> > >
> > > S7(8) requires one to comply with an SAR "promptly" and in
> > any event
> > > within 40 calendar days. The 40 days start on the day the SAR is 
> > > received or, if later, the first day on which one has: (1) any 
> > > required fee, and (2) any
> > > required information needed to (a) to satisfy oneself as to
> > > the identity of
> > > the requestor, and (b) to locate the requested data. The
> > > response must be
> > > complete to comply. So, if personal data was missing from
> > the initial
> > > response, the missing data must be found and passed on 
> promptly and, 
> > > in any event, within the original 40 day period.
> > >
> > > It may be that the 14 day time limit requested takes into
> > account the
> > > remaining days to comply with the 40 day maximum, or it 
> may be that 
> > > the data subject is granting a concession beyond the
> > original maximum
> > > period. In
> > > either event, it is probably reasonable but, if it is not 
> possible 
> > > to comply within that time then it would be wise to write 
> explaining
> > > the situation and
> > > proposing an alternative date by when you will comply (always
> > > bearing in
> > > mind the requirement to respond "promptly").
> > >
> > > It is believed that information which cannot be disclosed without 
> > > first obtaining third party consent according to s7(4) is 
> subject to 
> > > a separate 40 day period. Accordingly, one should comply with the 
> > > rest of the request
> > > first and then follow on with information for which one
> > > subsequently gets
> > > consent as soon as permission is received for that information.
> > >
> > > There is no time limit to rectify inaccurate personal data.
> > However,
> > > given the potential legal remedies, it would be wise to 
> rectify data 
> > > as soon as possible and to notify the data subject accordingly.
> > >
> > > Ian Mansbach
> > > Mansbachs
> > > Data Protection Practitioners
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > phone: 0871 716 5060

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager