>An example of [log in to unmask] who makes regular requests for a
>specific dataset, which is difficult to collate, may be helpful. Using
>whatever investigative means are deemed necessary it turns out the e-mail
>user is one 'Will Cremer' a secretarial assistant for the national
>training association of ice cream vendors, who have no web-site.
>If the real identity of that individual had initially been provided, would
>the issue have been perceived as any the less potentially vexatious?
In that example probably not. In fact your example seems to illustrate my
point that to be applicant blind the name of the applicant is
unnecessary. If the applicant had been abcd@northpole or 123@northpole
the request could still be satisfied. Yet it would be an 'invalid'
request. So it seems to me there is a purpose in stating the name of the
applicant.
The facts of a real case involving Sussex Police and the Commissioner's
decision notice may helpful: see
www.ico.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/Decision_Notice_FS50099691.pdf
The Commissioner determines the request to be vexatious based on the
volume of requests from a single applicant. In this particular case
knowing the real identity/name of the applicant seems to be important not
by itself but in enabling the Commissioner to go on to consider whether
the request is vexatious.
rgds,
Kevin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|