Chris Brogan on 22 December 2004 at 14:27 said:-
> does this now mean that a SAR for cctv images that are stored
> by tape can be rejected?
> Would it be the same answer if it was stored digitally?
> Does Durant's definition mean that cctv images are no longer
> personal data unless the controller does something specific with them?
> If it is not personal data then the police dont have to make
> sect29 requests. The controller could just give them a copy
> of the footage for 10-00am until 11-00am then the DP issues
> if any become that of the police.
> Can we exclude FOI at this stage of the discussion?
Could you properly exclude considering the FOI exemptions in such a
discussion.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Chris Brogan
> Sent: 22 December 2004 14:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SAR - Employee Recs
>
>
> Ian,
> does this now mean that a SAR for cctv images that are stored
> by tape can be rejected?
> Would it be the same answer if it was stored digitally?
> Does Durant's definition mean that cctv images are no longer
> personal data unless the controller does something specific with them?
> If it is not personal data then the police dont have to make
> sect29 requests. The controller could just give them a copy
> of the footage for 10-00am until 11-00am then the DP issues
> if any become that of the police.
> Can we exclude FOI at this stage of the discussion?
> Chris Brogan
>
> -----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: 22 December 2004 13:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SAR - Employee Recs
>
>
> In a message dated 22/12/04 11:43:17 GMT Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > I do not hear any employee representative organisation
> voicing any qualms
> > about the situation, so clearly that situation seems
> acceptable so far, and
> > privacy in the workplace may not be being seen as an issue.
>
> ----------
>
> I believe that neither the powers-that-be nor employees (and
> reps) understand
> exactly the situation that has arisen from the Durant case
> and the exemption
> from access to personnel files under FOI. There was
> something of an overlap
> period where the two restrictions passed by each other almost
> unnoticed.
>
> What it effectively means is this:
>
> 1) If an employee asks for subject access to their personnel
> data, they will
> be entitled in law to recieve ONLY the stuff that is held on computer;
>
> 2) If there is also a manual file, it is unlikely to be
> structured and is
> therefore outside the scope of DPA. After Johnson, this
> would also include data
> that had been printed from a computer file but was no longer
> held in computer
> form;
>
> 3) The FOI specifically exempts personnel information from
> the "unstructured
> manual file" extension;
>
> 4) Managers and bosses generally can then hold any
> information they like
> about the employee, including unfounded allegations, without
> ever having to reveal
> them to the accused (sorry I mean employee);
>
> 5) They could put those allegations in a reference provided
> the recipient
> does not scan it and or computerise it in some way.
>
> Of course scrupulous employers would not do these things, but
> IMHO it would
> all be legal.
>
> 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
> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to
> the list owner
> [log in to unmask]
> (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
> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to
> the list owner
> [log in to unmask]
> (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
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|