I stand duly corrected on the facts - however, I don't think it actually
changes my overall viewpoint. I think that if you apply a "balance of
interests test" I think that the public had a right to know why they
were being prevented from being able to go about their normal business.
What should LU have told the Press when they enquired as to why the RMT
were going on strike? Are you suggesting that they should have refused
to disclose any details on the grounds that it would infringe on the
data protection rights of a single individual? Or that the Press
wouldn't have rooted out the details in some other way from somewhere?
To take Tim's lead of citing an extreme case, should the Press not have
published photographs of American soldiers leading naked Iraqi POWs on a
lead because it might infringe on their privacy? Obviously, the main
difference is that this man was found innocent of his misconduct charge,
but then the Press never said he was guilty, they only reported on the
facts.
I don't deny that the individual concerned won't have appreciated the
Press' intrusion; who would? I believe this poor man is a pawn in a PR
chess game between the LU and the RMT, but I think both sides are happy
to be playing their part. Why else would Bob Crowe make a point of
giving the man a new squash racquet if not for the PR angle?
But ultimately, we are not talking about an issue of whether some
prima-donna supermodel got caught out fibbing about her cocaine
addiction; we're talking about millions of people being deprived of a
public service on which they rely, and which costs London businesses
millions of pounds in lost revenue.
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hubert, Paul [STU]
Sent: 11 May 2004 16:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Publiction of Sickness Record
>I've certainly not seen any details in the press that a complaint has
been
made by either the individual concerned or his Union in relation to
infringement of his data protection rights.
I don't know if he's 'complained' in a formal sense but he was on the
'Today' programme this morning and complained about LU leaking his
sickness
record. So far as I was able to follow I believe that the RMT union have
also objected because it wasn't relevant to the actual issue and because
it
was a public relations attack on him when they had lost the procedure.
I would have thought that having your details dragged through the gutter
by
tabloid newspapers, and having their journalists and photographers
probably
dogging your footsteps, would necessarily have a significant adverse
effect
on all but the most hardened publicity 'addict'. It isn't true that
'only
the guilty have anything to fear'.
Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
