Graham Smith on 27 March 2004 at 10:45 said:-
> I fear we are turning into an electronic society where an
> increasingly powerful state holds all the cards. If the state
> no longer has to prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' in
> order to take away a person's freedom, that will be a very
> sad day indeed.
Innocent until proven guilty is an issue which would seem as emotionally
charged as any Data Protection subject, with the indiscriminate provision of
information in response to S.29 requests certainly having great potential to
reverse that basic concept into guilty until proven innocent.
Orientations of a victim focus (a quite legitimate concern) within a legal
system could be seen as a tactic to engage peoples emotive responses rather
than a more reasoned line, and although it may not look like it at times
those working within the legal profession are not completely divorced from
emotion. Likewise, intelligence lead policing will inevitably lead to a
greater police demand for more and more information. Both strategies are in
line with the legitimate objectives of policing, but in today's
circumstances do have a significant unrepresented affect within the broader
social sphere, affecting the way people think about the innocence of an
accused person (Anti terror or information access?). I suppose the many
elements of the police and their support services can be quite effective in
what they do but being a responsive organisation they may continually focus
on the environment as it immediately affects them and their organisational
values.
If all information about everybody should be available to the elements of
the state all of the time, quite the opposite of what the Directive and DPA
say, there would be little need for that legislation. S.29 decisions which
data controllers are required to make, involve making choices based upon the
facts presented to them about the data they hold and the states need for
that information, against their own organisational background and values
rather than those of the policing organisation, they do not give
carte-blanche access. Court orders can do that if really necessary. Think
about the responses the police have historically given to requests (s.29 and
more serious) for information made of them? I know it to be very chary and
protectionist of the data, their culture demands that. Why should other
organisations be any different?
My apologies for this being yet another long post, but the issue is complex.
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|