Recognising the paradoxes could potentially provide data for guidance but
that no doubt requires careful interpretation rather than the straight
forward singularly logical use of one FOI percentage measurement.
An example: The strictly logical allocation of two letter departmental
computer identifiers within an organisation resulted in 'SS' being
positioned against a semi-political department of that organisation. As a
useful measurement of a number of softer more human matters that logical
allocation was made. Some months/years later, after several successful
departmental actions resulting in historically valid records, an approach
was made to change the 'SS' to 'SB' because of political sensitivities. The
resulting measurement could be interpreted in a number of ways, from lack of
sensitivity through non-prejudice to historical matters no longer carrying
the weight they previously did. Any interpretation would be completely open
to the interpreter without other validating data, some of which were
provided by many of the reactions to the original allocation, most of which
were less than logical, very human, very private and not easily recorded or
capable of being reflected in any simple logical measurement, but far more
valuable.
I would conjecture that merely because a percentage of people may make
'semi-private' use of FOI to try to find out things about particular matters
for specific purposes would not always automatically mean those same data
should be made available to everybody worldwide for any purpose. In fact the
FOI actions could perhaps be as indicative of the use of available or known
methods to avoid generic red tape than an acknowledgement the data is
public. The regulative book may be too coarse a tool to easily accommodate
finer issues within one short generic response, with those issues probably
being left to people to define or learn.
FOI covers public material, with semi private debates apparently being held
to determine the ‘personal’ with the finer issues intruding when errors of
judgement are made. DP on the other hand more immediately touches upon
perceptions of the softer more personal private areas and hence has seemed
more sensitive to the type of issues perhaps illustrated by the BT and DVLA
scenarios, which from many perspectives could indicate styles as much as
considerations of data subjects.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Carter, Antoinette (KIS)
> Sent: 08 February 2006 16:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Wanting our cake and eating it....
>
>
> I have found all discussions relating to the Vehicle
> Licensing website, geo-positioning & BT's SMS strange new
> "service" really interesting, mainly because I wear two hats
> in my post namely DP and FOI. And it is perhaps because of
> my roots being firmly enbedded in the public sector that I
> find myself defending the Vehicle Licensing site, who are in
> my opinion, only trying to serve the public as best they can
> with the limited resources available to them, whilst being
> very suspicious of the private sector outfits, whose aims are
> based on profit, not the greater good.
>
> But I can also sympathise with Martin Hoskins' views about
> only trying to provide the public with the services they say
> they want, or that they do not even know they want yet. Who
> could have ever predicted just how la-la the whole world
> appears to be on SMS technology (personally I hate it). But
> I compare it to the double-standard the general public
> applied to the gutter press for "hounding" Princess Diana, in
> that if the public hadn't had an endless thirst for photos
> and news of her, then the paparazzi wouldn't have been
> chasing her around in the first place.
>
> We (the general public) demand ever increasing amounts of
> information to be made available to us cheaply and
> conveniently. And on the other, we are obsessed with
> protecting our own privacy. As a DP Officer I sympathise
> with that view, but as an FOI Officer I want to be able to
> deal with as many requests as possible by pro-actively
> publishing information on the Publication Scheme, rather than
> dealing with requests individually. We want to be able to
> find our kids, but don't want our bosses to find us! To a
> greater or lesser extent, most of us are both Jekyll and
> Hyde; poacher and gamekeeper!
>
> 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.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/06
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|