In message <[log in to unmask]>, at 15:41:19
on Wed, 25 Apr 2007, J.S.M.Whitaker <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I believe that the motoring offence of reckless driving was abolished at
>least in part because proving "recklessness" was so difficult.
Was that before or after they drafted "recklessness" into the 1998 DPA?
What would be a better way to describe the standard we might wish those
holding our data to aspire to? Later on it talks about a "reasonable
belief" that the disclosure was OK. What's a "reasonable" standard when
it comes to procedures to foil blaggers?
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|