In message
<[log in to unmask]>, at
14:41:13 on Mon, 9 May 2005, "Smith, Tony"
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I don't think that is retrospective. Information that you had and
>destroyed before it came into force would not be covered. Information
>that you still possessed when it came into force would. So, if someone
>sent you a reference 10 years ago, and you still have it, then it would
>be covered as it is personal information that you hold while the Act is
>in force.
>
>If you consider medical records as a prime example. You are entitled to
>your medical records. This would be all of your records and not just
>the ones that were made after it came into force.
There's another recent Act that is "retrospective" in the same way. The
Sexual Offences Act raised the age for subjects of certain photographs
from 16 to 18, making possession of some historical items depicting (eg)
17 year olds an offence overnight. There wasn't a rule that said "only
applies to photos taken after this Act was put into force". But if
people destroyed the photos just-in-time, they couldn't be prosecuted
for the historical possession.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|