Dave Wyatt wrote:
>
> Bill
>
> Data Protection issues in this case would not just be about BT registering.
> The Acts first principle is about fair collection and processing.
> The interpretation of this principle has been that individuals must be
> advised of all potential uses of information PRIOR to such use. If no PRIOR
> notification has been given then there is an obligation for the data user /
> controller to seek consent to such uses.
>
> If the use is fraud prevention then BT would have registered purpose code
> P058 - Prevention and detection of Crime and should have a notification
> about such a use in their contracts with customers.
>
> Interestingly legal advices I have been given indicates consent should be
> freely given and can therefore also withdrawn. How this would effect
> provision of services where individuals are unhappy with giving consent to
> such uses has never been tested.
>
> Presumably BT would makes such a use mandatory in offering their services.
>
> What would happen in motor insurance if clients withdrew consent from fraud
> prevention uses. Insurers could not decline to offer insurance given it is a
> statutory requirement on motorists. Premiums would therefore have to be
> increased to cover potential fraud which cannot be detected due to consent
> withdrawal.
>
> At some point the issues of fraud prevention activities need to be
> challenged as everyone appears to be considered a potential fraudster.
>
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Kenway <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 09 January 1999 11:24
> Subject: Re: IS THIS A DATA PROTECTION MATTER?
>
> >Ray,
> >
> >Looking at it from three perspectives:
> >
> >Mr B - looking for a quick resolution to the problem to get the service
> >back, and depending on what questions had been asked (if resonable (don't
> >ask me to expand on that - please) ) I would not be overly put out
> answering
> >them.
> >
> >From BT's point of view, the are obvioulsy looking to combat fraud. If the
> >this kind of data mining will facilitate them in that purpose, and those
> >functions are included as part of BT's register entry then I don't really
> >see a problem.
> >
> >Ethically, although BT have accused Mr B and therefore the onus of proof
> >lays upon them, it appears that Mr B does have a case to answer. BT have
> a
> >duty to themselves and their shareholders to prevent fraud. Therefore, it
> >is neither unreasonable to ask the questions nor to expect an answer.
> >
> >Or, am I too right wing<g>?
> >
> >Bill Kenway -
> >Student No. 98011970T
> >Westminster University - MSc IT Security
> >(Former THD204 student, passed - just!)
> >
> >
Fraud prevention is one of the major uses of the America's databases,
about which the EC is so concerned. They are used for insurance,
finance, employment, medical, credit, etc., etc. It is an unfortunate
fact that giving consumers a veto on this "use" of their data will
increase transaction costs for the honest, even those who refuse
permission. This will raise the costs to all, and reduce the ability of
both government and companies to detect and prevent fraud. This in turn
will make employers, credit-granters, insurers, more selective and
cautious in making their decisions, which in turn reduces economic
activity, which harms all. Privacy right systems impose high taxes on a
society, and there is no way of measuring the total impact, but we will
see myriads of unintended consequences such as these as time goes on.
--
Charles A. Prescott
Vice President, International Business Development
and Government Affairs
Direct Marketing Association
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
U.S.A.
Tel. (1) 212-790-1552
Fax. (1) 212-790-1499
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|