In message <[log in to unmask]>, at 09:42:49 on Tue, 8
Jan 2008, Nigel Roberts <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I disagree.
>
>The exemption is for 'prevention and detection of crime' NOT for
>'police investigations'.
Good luck in persuading a data controller that a member of the public is
a bona-fide person to be conducting those activities.
>For example, if your hypothesis was correct, the exemption wouldn't
>apply to the Security Service (who are civilians, Crown servants, and
>NOT part of the police or the government).
It's the job of people working in companies that receive requests under
29(3) to have a suitably conservative list of organisations that
"qualify". It's clearly not just the police - but the RIPA list of
Public Authorities isn't far off what you'll likely find in practice.
>I think the statutory language is broad enough to cover a private
>investigator's request for data, as well as official police inquiries.
29(3) is not a power to require disclosure, it's a scheme to allow
organisations to co-operate with law enforcement *if they wish*. And any
mistakes are at the disclosing organisation's risk. If they don't wish,
they can (and do) tell even the police to go away.
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Ah but that was the point I was making - surely it's the police who
>>should receive such data as they are the ones empowered to prevent and
>>detect crime, not Mr Clarkson who has no authority in that regard.
>> Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim
>> Head
>> Department of Information Science
>> Loughborough University
>> Loughborough
>> Leics LE11 3TU
>> Tel 01509-223065
>> Fax 01509 223053
>> e mail [log in to unmask] -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 07 January
>>2008 19:21
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Jeremy Clarkson comments
>> Their comments are complete nonsense, IMO.
>> Of COURSE they can disclose to Mr Clarkson the details. There is a
>>particular exemption "prevention and detection of crime".
>> What they mean is they don't want to, unless compelled.
>> Which Mr Clarkson could do. (Norwich Pharmacal order), but he'd have
>>to pay their (and his own) costs, which make it impractical for £500.
>> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> What the comment MIGHT mean is that that they cannot disclose *to Mr
>>>Clarkson* the name of the person who did it, because there wouldn't
>>>be an appropriate purpose for processing such data for Mr Clarkson,
>>>but if the police asked, they would reveal the information because
>>>that would be for the purpose of detection of crime.
>>> Anyway, I too am delighted that smug Mr Clarkson has lost 500
>>>pounds, though it would have been even better if it had gone to
>>>that organisation that lobbies for reduced speed limits on the roads.
>>> Charles
>>>
>>> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>>> Head
>>> Department of Information Science
>>> Loughborough University
>>> Loughborough
>>> Leics LE11 3TU
>>>
>>> Tel 01509-223065
>>> Fax 01509 223053
>>> e mail [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Lawrence Serewicz
>>> *Sent:* 07 January 2008 17:53
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: Jeremy Clarkson comments
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope that the following statement from the article is incorrect.
>>>
>>> "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data
>>>Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this not an example of using the data protection act for the
>>>wrong reasons? In other words, if someone were to perpetuate a
>>>fraud, take my identity, then surely the bank would be able to tell
>>>me who is taking money out of my account.
>>>
>>> I understand in Mr. Clarkson's case he set himself up for this
>>>situation, but how is this different from someone dumpster diving and
>>>getting the necessary details?
>>>
>>> I think that the claim that the information cannot be released
>>>because of data protection is wholly misguided. For example, if a
>>>bank employee sets up the direct debit based upon having access to
>>>your account surely it can be revealed without concern for "Data Protection."
>>>
>>> Hoping to be proven wrong.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Lawrence
>>>
>>>
>>> Lawrence W. Serewicz
>>> Policy and Partnership Manager
>>> Corporate Development Unit
>>> Wear Valley District Council
>>> 01388-761-985
>>> Ext. 311
>>>
>>>
>>> *"Ward, Ciaran" <[log in to unmask]>*
>>> Sent by: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> 07/01/2008 17:11
>>> Please respond to
>>> "Ward, Ciaran" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> cc
>>>
>>> Subject
>>> Re: [data-protection] Jeremy Clarkson comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An interesting (not to mention amusing) piece which brings to public
>>> attention the importance of data protection. And it couldn't have
>>> happened a more smugly irritating individual.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clare Watts
>>> Sent: 07 January 2008 16:53
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [data-protection] Jeremy Clarkson comments
>>>
>>> Hi, you've probably all already received this but if not, its worth a
>>> read:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Clare
--
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|