I think we need to remember here, that (if I recall correctly), there is no
automatic "right" to privacy in English Law. There is the Data PROTECTION
Act (not privacy act) and there is the common law (not legislative) duty of
confidentiality. The Human Rights Act provides a right to respect for
private and family life, this not the same as affording privacy as I
understand it.
Also, if I remember rightly, there is the case of R v Lord (I will try and
look it up). The upshot was that reports about a prisoner in relation to
their parole were deemed disclosable even though they would identify the
prison officers who wrote them. I think the judge stated that they were
given in a professional and not personal capacity and so could not be
withheld. I and my memory are willing to stand corrected on this.
Simon Howarth
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Baines, Jonathan
Sent: 08 December 2010 11:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Section 47
Again, agreed, and I would stress that I was merely disagreeing with the
formulation that people who "attend in their professional capacity ... are
therefore not third parties" (and I would add that they may be "relevant
persons" according to the Modification Order, but that, again, does not mean
*by definition* that they have no privacy rights). If anyone has concerns
about my position I would refer them to my (carefully worded) original post!
Jonathan Baines
Legal and Democratic Services
Buckinghamshire County Council
tel: 01296 383681
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Turner
Sent: Wednesday 08 December 2010 11:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Section 47
I think there is a considerable difference between people having a
reasonable expectation of privacy for their personal business at work, and
privacy being relevant to the identity and official actions of an employee.
The Human Rights Act doesn't give a right to privacy, but a right to respect
for home life, family and so on. So my employer listening into my calls to
my girlfriend raises significant privacy implications - my employer
identifying me as the chair of the Records Management meeting I just
attended does not.
The Hunt issue is a good example - a person may be disproportionately
affected, both in and out of work, by getting involved in a contentious
work-related issue. But I don't see that as privacy so much as the fairness
aspects of DP, or just health and safety. In an FOI world, we should
generally approach our work with the expectation that we will be publicly
associated with it and accountable for it, unless there are specific reasons
not to.
Tim Turner
Information Governance Manager
NHS Manchester
1st floor
Parkway 3
Parkway Business Centre
Princess Road
Manchester, M14 7LU
[log in to unmask]
DDI: 0161 765 4174
Please note I only work on Tuesdays and one other day each week, so a
response may be delayed.
<snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|