In a message dated 27/04/2001 21:27:17 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< To save time and minimise cost the video recordings were depersonalised by
bluring all of the screen except for the image of the data subject. This
left the eventually disclosed material containing only the images of the
individual with everything else blurred. I considered trying to only blur
the faces of other individuals on the recording, but the resource costs
would have increased from 2 hours to 1 day or more, for the approximately 5
minutes of recording contained in the extracts showing the data subject. >>
------------
I would have thought that removing any more than 3rd party identities
(faces?) would be a breach of the Act.
The location may have been necessary as (e.g.) an alibi.
If the request had been for computerised data and you deleted everything but
the person's name and address you would certainly be in trouble!!
Hope this is no too simplistic a view - any comments?
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
Please Note: The information contained in this document does not replace or
negate the need for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
essential that you do not rely upon any advice given without contacting your
solicitor. If you need further explanation of any points raised please
contact Keep I.T. Legal Ltd at the address below:
55 Curbar Curve
Inkersall, Chesterfield
Derbyshire S43 3HP
(Reg 3822335)
Tel: 01246 473999
Fax: 01246 470742
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
