Tim Turner on 02 June 2005 at 12:10 said:-
> I don't believe that Data Protection should be used as a
> barrier to prevent wider access to information that is
> traditionally seen as public, especially if the risk is the
> one outlined here. Repressive governments hunting dissidents
> and asylum seekers are probably able to use more
> sophisticated methods than Google. And if they might,
> shouldn't the solution be that Councils show some common
> sense, and accept a pseudonym or a P.O. Box in the rare
> instances that it is necessary, rather than closing down a
> process generally regarded as open?
Equally Data Protection should not be ignored purely because a particular
objective is easier to achieve that way.
Privacy is commonly not merely understood at keeping something completely
private, so going back to the principles - If common sense is applied to
principles one and three, clearly making any data available to anybody at
all, irrespective of any reasonable link to the information or its use
appears to be a clear breach of principle seven.
If the LA's wish to publish worldwide perhaps Durant should be used to argue
that data is not subject to the DPA and if the government wish to, they
should pass another regulation allowing it, providing any regulations allow
for all planning permissions to appear on the WWW.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Turner
> Sent: 02 June 2005 12:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opinions sought - Planning Applications
>
>
> For what it's worth, I personally believe that the idea that
> the planning process is made as open and transparent as it
> can be is an inherently good thing.
>
> A question posed here is what the effect would be if people
> didn't make planning objections because they were afraid of
> having their names and addresses published worldwide. I would
> like to ask another question: what is the effect of
> maintaining a system where access to the planning process is
> limited to people who go to the Town Hall? I believe that it
> curtails the ability of a whole range of people - the elderly
> or disabled for example - to see what's going on in their
> locality. Even if they don't have access to the internet at
> home, such people often make use of libraries or drop-in
> centres where there are invariably helpful staff and
> volunteers who will assist them to access the web. Moreover,
> a wide variety of working people might be encouraged to play
> a part if the internet is part of the picture, but who might
> not bother if they have to visit the Town Hall. Most people
> who search planning applications will be, to coin a phrase,
> local people. Should they be penalised in order to prevent
> what looks to me like a limited risk?
>
> I don't believe that Data Protection should be used as a
> barrier to prevent wider access to information that is
> traditionally seen as public, especially if the risk is the
> one outlined here. Repressive governments hunting dissidents
> and asylum seekers are probably able to use more
> sophisticated methods than Google. And if they might,
> shouldn't the solution be that Councils show some common
> sense, and accept a pseudonym or a P.O. Box in the rare
> instances that it is necessary, rather than closing down a
> process generally regarded as open?
>
> Tim Turner
> Legal and Property Services
> Wigan Council
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:10:42 EDT, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 01/06/05 13:54:58 GMT Daylight Time,
> >[log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> >> Given that planning applications are inherently public and
> subject to
> >> public comment and objection, I find it difficult to see
> why people
> >> should be permitted to withdraw from the web publication of their
> >> identity. I can, after all, just go to the Council
> offices and see
> >> the full register if I want - That is a statutory right.
> >
> >--------
> >But people (and governments) in countries where there are no data
> protection
> >laws do not currently have the ability to search for a
> person's name in
> >the register available for public (ie neighbour) scrutiny.
> The nature
> >of the internet would allow such as asylum seekers and
> dissidents to be
> >sought
> through
> >simple web search engines. Do you need to know that a
> person in China
> >has
> applied
> >for permission for a swimming pool?
> >
> >Incidentally the right to object is not there for
> applicants, only for
> >informants of breaches of regulations, according to the guidance
> >recently
> published
> >(May 2005). Objectors to applications may also have details
> withheld
> >but
> they
> >will be told that anonymous objections can (or will) be
> disregarded.
> >If a person then decides not to object because they don't want their
> >details published wordwide, what will that do to the
> planning process?
> >
> >Ian B
> >
> >Ian Buckland
> >Managing Director
> >Keep IT Legal Ltd
> >
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|