For my two-penny-worth, I think that "out of order rants" are an
integral part of engaging in a real debate. I think political
correctness sometimes stifles an open and frank exchange of views.
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Howarth (RGC)
Interim Information Governance Manager
Sent: 16 March 2006 13:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] The other Blair
Well, as for me, my rant was probably a little out of order, regardless
of how accurate it may have been. I agree, it is an issue of trust, but
without knowing the levels of trust expected between these two
individuals, then it is impossible to rely on it.
Finally I realise my comments were attached to an NHS e-mail and I will
add the comments were my own opinion, and should have come from my own
e-mail address in hindsight!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Welton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 March 2006 11:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] The other Blair
Kirsty Gray on 15 March 2006 at 16:11 said:-
> Slightly off-thread question - when & how is a conversation between
> the Attorney General and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner classed
> as 'private', as reported in the Telegraph?
I had been under the impression that opening comments of many official
conversations contained private material which was utilised as an
icebreaker. Certainly many interpersonal courses/literature teach that,
with some sales callers attempting to follow the same pattern as a means
of engaging the attention of the parties involved.
> So if, as Sir Ian claims, he taped the call as an 'aide memoire'
> because he didn't have a note-taker AND he had no intention of sharing
> with a third party, then seems to me he hasn't actually done anything
> wrong. Recording for personal use is surely no different to pencil
> scribbles on a bit of paper? Reactions of government, members of PCC,
> press, etc.
> seem a bit over
> the top!
That observation does seem to identify the very difficulties inherent in
separating personal data from business data. I wonder if the policies of
the organisations in question allow the use of organisational equipment
for personal purposes?
> Simon Howarth on 15 March 2006 at 16:22 said:-
> Quite simply. He's being used as a scape goat, and I think the
> politicians of this country are a lying, foul stench on the clear
> water of our society.
>
> I for one fully support anyone who records a conversation with a
> politician (or in this case the Attorney General), and for him to be
> vilified in this way is quite simply a travesty.
>
> I do not believe he has done anything wrong, he just happens to be
> easy prey for the powers that be and the newspapers, who if they
> looked at public opinion would see quite overwealming support for him,
> on this issue at least.
>
> (Rant over).
Rant or not the whole issue highlights the 'trust' elements involved.
And breach of trust is something which people can end up in prison for.
Equally any break down in trust at those levels in my opinion must be a
very serious matter of grave public concern.
Carter, Antoinette (KIS) on 15 March 2006 at 16:23 said:-
> I thought the issue was that Mr Blair did not inform the other person
> at the time that the call was being recorded - therefore, it was not
> "fair processing" as per DP Principle 1.
It is publicly known that calls to the police are generally routinely
recorded at both exchange and any control room levels with other
vulnerable areas also recording calls. It does seem rather anomalous
that official calls carrying far more risks for society are for some
reason not routinely recorded and available for scrutiny. Perhaps the
answer is there is a greater reliance on trust and understanding at the
higher levels, or maybe any lack of recordings is seen as providing
freedom and flexibility allowing trust to develop.
Tim Trent on 15 March 2006 at 16:24 said:-
> When your star is no longer in the ascendant because your officers
> failed to exercise enough caution to prevent the death of an innocent
> member of the public, then you are fair game.
I was under the impression that policies of significant consequence are
generally informed by all relevant parts of any organisation, and are
also normally passed to any external authorities whom may have an
interest for comment. To do anything else would be exceedingly
autocratic and rather poor management. Although enquiries made with
groups who may react adversely to the material involved are sometimes
wrapped up in ways which do not always directly reveal their true
nature.
One assumes those methods are aimed at ensuring the culture of an
organisation is properly reflected within any resulting policy whilst
also assuring external support. Where contentious policies are concerned
it was my impression that support became more important and greater care
was normally taken to assure important stakeholders were properly
briefed.
Of course there have always been cases where a sacrificial lamb is
needed, and as DPO's will be aware, they are often in line for that so
may take precautions as are necessary to provide some protection. For
examples of that look to the recent scandals in the past where the
Humberside police DPO and the DPA were initially blamed for catastrophic
problems caused by vetting errors. Although maybe those problems could
have been caused by a misunderstanding of the communication/written
words it is as possible to have been a strictly logical interpretation
of the advice given applied across the board.
Should people not be able to make provisions to protect themselves or
clarify their understanding?
If they are not then trust could become all important and many problems
would never come to light until the wheel fell off.
Kirsty Gray on 15 March 2006 at 16:53 said:-
> Ah ha! I see, if they can't get him on a big thing then lots of small
> things will do???
>
> I still think its a load of old hoo-ha - after all it seems to be a
> tort under civil law at most, not a hanging offence under criminal
> law!
>
> The hypocracy of press beggers belief - particularly the red tops,
> who'd happily buy the tapes 'no questions asked' in different circs!
Quite, and the poor old DPO often has to step in determine if the
material is personal data. I wonder what the Metpol DPO is advising
right now, or even if they are involved, perhaps they have been asked in
a masked way and will merely suffer the consequences of any mistake, the
same as all the rest of the organisation, or maybe the matter has been
deemed not to involve DP.
Nick Landau on 15 March 2006 at 16:58 said:-
> Having said that I can see that there is a difference between the PC
> and the Attorney General having a chat about policy than Lord
> Goldsmith giving a legal opinion - every time Lord Goldsmith speaks is
> that a legal opinion - I would even think that the AG can think out
> loud.
Is that an official opinion, or informed by personal experience and
expressed as a personal opinion?
Ian W
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 3/14/06
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it.The British Council accepts no liability for loss or damage caused by software viruses and you are advised to carry out a virus check on any attachments contained in this message. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK's creative ideas and achievements. The British Council is registered in England as a charity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
