Clifford Miller said:
>CAN THE STUDENT BE IDENTIFIED?
>
>Taken strictly, the student is not identifiable from the comment alone, ie
>'from those data' if the comment is simply about the substance or style of
>the answer.
>
>Thus, is the student identifiable from the comment and from other data in
>the data controller's possession?
>
>In all normal circumstances the answer to the latter question is likely to
>be 'no', because the student is identifiable only from other information
>and not from the combination of that other information and the comment.
>
>However, this depends on how the information is recorded. In the case of
>examination scripts, if the individual comments are recorded on a database
>(highly unlikely), and can be searched, it might be possible to produce a
>list of students who have had a comment of that nature made on their
>examination scripts. If there is only one student, then the student can
>be identified from the single comment.
I don't understand this argument. The student is identifiable because on
the front of the exam paper is his/her name or some other method of
identifying him/her such as a registration number. A set of exam scripts
form a database that is searchable by student name. So, the student is
certainly identifiable from other data in the data controller's posession.
Ergo, the examination comments are personal data. To argue that "because
the comments *on their own* do not allow the student to be identified means
the comments are not personal data" seems nonsensical to me. Or am I
missing something here?
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Dept of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|