Have needed to consider this e-mail thread at length.
Providing for a culture allowing that advice to be invoked would seem very
sensible as it would require abilities or mechanisms allowing different
answers to be provided and recognised as valid thereby avoiding the pitfalls
associated with simple rational collusions between any parties involved.
Collusions seemingly often lead to very dangerous difficulties for
organisations who may continue to utilise surviving blinkered viewpoints
reasonably rationalised into a less than questioning joint acceptance, a
view which may easily be evidenced by clarity of observation.
In the public sector quality of service arguments can seem to survive
provided that the strength of financial pressures are not presented in an
overwhelming way, in which circumstance it has more often been my perception
that, come what may, greed or growth more often wins the day. There are
other occasions where those threads may be con figured to support each other
provided that one lives only in the moment, consider public area CCTV as an
example.
Rational reasoning by itself seems only to provide one tool in any decision
process and for broadly sound decisions a diverse set both of inputs and
methods is required.
Ian W
> -----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 16:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Durant - Can I ignore it?
>
>
> I largely agree with this. I advise clients, when I am asked,
> not to ignore Durant in terms of the ruling, but to ignore it
> in the spirit of providing a quality of service to the
> requestor of information that is commensurate with what they
> would reasonably expect. I also tell them to remember it is
> there (for now) should there ever be a need to invoke it. I
> have not come across such a case directly.
>
> Simon Howarth.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carter, Antoinette (KIS)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 16 March 2006 16:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Durant - Can I ignore it?
>
>
> But the reality of the situation is that day to day cases
> don't end up in court. You could quote test case law ad
> nauseam but I don't think it necessarily helps arriving at a
> workable policy on handling "business as usual" requests for
> information under DPA/FOIA. For that purpose, I think you
> can ignore Durant. If you were about to go to court to
> defend a particular case then obviously you would have to consider it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Nigel Roberts
> Sent: 16 March 2006 15:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Durant - Can I ignore it?
>
> Tim Turner wrote:
> > I think that the simple answer to this question is yes, you
> can ignore
>
> > Durant and you would not be alone if you did.
> >
> > If you wanted to justify why, you could say that the Court of Appeal
> > decision is probably not in line with the EU Directive, that the EU
> > were
>
> What I am about to say is NOT professional advice, and I do
> not profess special skill, but I think this is absolutely NOT
> an option for any government department or 'emanation of the
> state' (Marshall v Southampton Area Health Authority, Foster
> v British Gas.)
>
> > taking action against the UK for not implementing the DPA
> properly as
> > a result, that the UK Government department responsible for Data
> > Protection has apparently said that Durant need only apply
> in similar
> > situations, and
>
> If the UK has not implemented the DP Directive properly, the
> Directive is designed to give rights to implementation has
> passed, THEN the Directive itself overrides the English Law.
> (Van Gend en Loos v Dutch Tax Office). If you are a state
> body, the directive can be directly used against you in
> English Law. This is known as Direct Effect.
>
> If you are not an emanation of the state, the wronged party
> cannot sue you (Faccini Dori v RECREB) but CAN sue the
> Government for any losses caused thereby. (Francovich v Italy.
>
> EU Law is a wonderful minefield . . .
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
> > more than anything, you can justify it on the basis that it's good
> > manners and good customer service.
> >
> > Tim Turner
> > Wigan Council
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Graeme Hawley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 16 March 2006 14:16
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [data-protection] Durant - Can I ignore it?
> >
> > Sorry to bring up Durant again.
> >
> > I think that I have understood that Durant allows a data
> contoller to
> > take a very narrow definition of relevant paper filing systems
> > (leaving aside the FOI affected public authorities for the
> minute).
> > But does Durant stop a Data Contoller from applying a broader
> > definition if they so wish. In other words, just because Durant
> > allows the pusillanimous organisation the opportunity to discount
> > folders with names on (but sinfully arranged in
> chronological order -
> > what's that all about?), does the Durant ruling mean that a
> sturdier
> > organisation is forbidden to go that gruelling extra mile, and, for
> > example, fish out an individuals personnel file from the
> > alphabetically arranged sequence of names in response to that
> individual's request for access.
> >
> > As it happens, I work for a public authority so am covered by FOISA
> > and its wider definition of relevant filing system anyway.
> > Ironically, we do hold information which I would like to apply a
> > narrower definition to, but FOISA means we cant. We hold
> upwards of
> > 50 million pages of manuscripts in our library collection, many of
> > which contain personal data. Despite the best efforts of
> our staff to
>
> > catalogue these, my guess is that they would more than classify as
> unstructured data not held in a relevant filing system.
> > But because of FOISA, they are covered by access
> legislation, and all
> > of the various problems this creates (such as the theoretical
> > possibility that we may have to spend an unlimited amount
> of time and
> > resources searching for the existance of a persons name in tens of
> > thousands of paper documents - remembering that the FOISA charging
> > structure does not include time spent establishing whether the
> information is held or not).
> >
> > Is it me?
> >
--
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
