Graham Hadfield on 07 June 2005 at 08:22 said:-
> Not sure where we are going here. In the case of
> organisations (government
> only?) which do not have to apply to planning authorities for
> planning permission because they can grant it for themselves
> no application would be received by the authority so no
> decision could be made as to whether to publish on the web or not.
That is the very point. So there are in fact plans which do not appear on
the WWW.
> As regards locations of "weapons dealers" in general, there
> are often stories in tne press, radio and TV about companies
> which have been awarded contracts to build
> tanks/ships/aircraft for HMG and I can certainly recall
> seeing TV footage of factories in (for instance) Newcastle,
> Derby and Preston (often with the rider that jobs have been saved).
However TV footage of any areas considered secure would not have appeared,
because the organisation itself would have taken precautions they did not.
Take for instance the swimming pool reactor in Derby. The very existence of
which was classified for many years, even though the commerce associated
with it made it clear it existed. Would full plans for something like that
be made available on the WWW?
If some things are not made available on the WWW, because they are
considered to be sensitive matters or relate to security, and an opt out of
publication in some form exists, (even if that is achieved by no submission
at all) how can it be justified that individual data subjects may be denied
any similar opt out type mechanism which may be available within the DPA, if
they consider it necessary for the security of their home premises?
Taking [log in to unmask] observation on 06 June 2005 at 20:46
> I know of one incident that involved a planning application
> for a jeweller's
> store. The council's web site had full details of the
> application plus a copy
> of the plan which actually showed the position of the safe!!!! Also
> available on the council website was a "business directory"
> for the area which said
> quite clearly that the number of employees was one.
Which clearly indicates that security relevant information regarding
commercial premises is also made available without any apparent
consideration (if no opt out is available). Would anybody be liable for
damages arising as a direct and provable result of WWW publication? If the
approach were valid that the security of the premises was not breached by
the publication, more because somebody actually read the information made
available, then I would agree that ALL planning information should be
published and any security aspects would need to concentrate on who reads
information made available, but then that would present an even greater set
of problems and require great focus on what everybody in the world might
view on the WWW, with determinations then needed to see if they even read
it, understood any security information present then intended or took action
as a direct result. If merely viewing the published data caused the problem
then revert back the focus of this debate.
This does appear to be an important point in understanding some aspects of
privacy and hence DP as it bears directly upon the public private divide,
but I begin to see that there is probably little new material here.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Graham Hadfield
> Sent: 07 June 2005 08:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opinions sought - Planning Applications
>
>
> >The point I was trying to draw upon was that in many
> aspects, security
> type >information relies upon a need to know approach, and as
> such I would guess issues >like the LGCS or even the national
> classification scheme could well disprove what >had
> previously been stated to Graham.
>
> Not sure where we are going here. In the case of
> organisations (government
> only?) which do not have to apply to planning authorities for
> planning permission because they can grant it for themselves
> no application would be received by the authority so no
> decision could be made as to whether to publish on the web or not.
>
> As regards locations of "weapons dealers" in general, there
> are often stories in tne press, radio and TV about companies
> which have been awarded contracts to build
> tanks/ships/aircraft for HMG and I can certainly recall
> seeing TV footage of factories in (for instance) Newcastle,
> Derby and Preston (often with the rider that jobs have been saved).
>
> Regards,
> Graham
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|