Although if you go back to Ian Huntley - the Chief of Police in
Humberside/Cambridgeshire said they didn't disclose due to the DPA. I
just wish Lord F had intervened then and those poor parents minsd could
have been put at rest a lot sooner.
D
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Welton
Sent: 09 January 2007 14:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Disclosure
Common! maybe more accurately uncommon sense.
Was Lord Falconers reported opinion a political, or considered legal
one?
Even interpreting Lord Faulkner's considered comments as being made in
the context of his political role and needs rather than a more
considered legal role, the affect on DP is significant.
How did the police deal with compliance with their DP notifications,
which require compliance with their own policies and procedures when
disclosing personal data, when the reported outcome from those policies
and procedures was - there was insufficient risk to warrant disclosure?
With the police being reported as disclosing the photographs, and if the
reported opinion was a political one, are the police reviewing their
policies and procedures to allow for the direct exercise of political
opinions at variance with policy or procedural findings when processing
personal data? Those policies and procedures are certainly within their
direct control and facilitating such exceptional intervention would
simplify many of the difficult management choices by facilitating a more
authoritarian process.
Are the professionals in all the organisations involved who apparently
independently and consistently provided advice on the level of risk to
the public at variance to that perceived by Lord Falconer being
retrained. Are the policies and any guidance which directed those
professionals in their decision processes being amended? Is any
regulation which determined those policies to be reviewed?
Is Lord Falconer legally right or wrong, is he politically right or
wrong?
Does the reported view mean that the media should be left to determine
proportionality for purpose, and any other considerations should be
ignored?
A great deal of the supporting policy guidance for the Human Rights Act
and supporting DP policy was reported as having gone through The Lord
Chancellors office for expert legal consideration. Was that opinion
wrong; if so is the Lord Chancellors office to be retrained in light of
subsequent experience?
If the underlying philosophy of the reported statement causing the
disclosure was a 'might = right' one, which would certainly be
consistent with many political and legal approaches to many privacy
matters, does this mean that DP will always be in the wrong when
unpopular matters are considered. If so the implications for DP
practitioners might be very clear, and the DPA would seem superfluous.
Does the ICO's statement mean that they abide by a potential breach of
notification provided policies and procedures exist?
Whilst I agree with those who point out that political questions need to
be aired in political arenas, I dispute that the implementation of an
apparent decision considered at variance to the regulation, policy and
procedure by so many experts across different organisations and
professions is not an area which should be of significant legitimate
interest to DP practitioners in their day to day work of attempting to
match personal data management to the needs of an organisation. If those
issues were not of any DP interest red tape would rule and organisations
would forever be at odds with any authoritively perceived social change.
Ian
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:31:22 -0000
From: "Broom, Doreen" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Disclosure
In any event, common-sense has prevailed - they have now been
published!!!
D=20
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: 07 January 2007 11:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Disclosure
Nick:
The point has been put that it may be unlawful to publish a photo of an
absconder who had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, but was
not classified as a danger to the public.
The question seemed to be, is this right under the DPA (as interpreted
by
s.3 of the HRA)? The offenders Art.8 rights are clearly engaged.
My point is that such publication /is/ compatible with the offenders
Convention rights and lawful under the DPA because of the nature of the
qualification in Art.8 itself. Nothing to do with criminology.
Others may wish to discuss social policy. I don't.
Regards
Nigel
Nick Landau wrote:
> You have chopped who you are responding to.
>
> I am not aware that anyone in this discussion would strongly object to
> your statement that:
>
> "It is in the wide interests both of public safety and of the=20
> prevention of crime and disorder, that absconders are caught and=20
> returned to their place of incarceration, even if the individuals
> are=20 not an imminent public danger."
>
> I would imagine that a criminology or probation discussion group might
> be better suited to discussing these aspects which seem to be
> outside=20 the remit of this group.
>
> Nick Landau
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 messages please send to the list
owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your
needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the
Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied
exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to
achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number
2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information
security products and services. For more information about this please
visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
********************************************************************
* This email is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. *
* Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its content is prohibited. *
* The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily *
* be the views held by Scottish Borders Council. *
* Please be aware that any email sent or received by the Council *
* may require to be disclosed by the Council under the provisions *
* of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. *
********************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
