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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
