 |
 |
Good point Wilhelm So much for the arguments of EU legislative harmonisation. Given that our legislative designers were not so far sighted why would anyone be surprised if a commercial organisation now argues equal standing with public sector marketing processes. If it is OK for a school to add a marketing approach (assuming we accept this is what fund raising is ) within a letter they are obliged to send regardless of opt out, I assume it is also reasonable for a commercial organisation to argue they can add a marketing approach into any communication which they are obliged to send under contract e.g. Insurance renewals, bank statements etc. The point Craig made in earlier debate regards the ODPC response indicating that fund raising correspondence sent an unnamed parent is still processing of personal data seemed logical given that the DPA makes reference to personal data being the set of data in the possession of or likely to come into the possession of a data controller. It would seem odd if the school did not know the identity of the parents of the children. So if I as a parent ask not be sent any fund raising requests they can link my request to letters they choose to give to my children and suppress. We can all argue the administrative practicalities of this but it is reasonable to expect a consistent interpretation and application of the legislation, regardless of sector if the legislation has not differentiated. David Wyatt -----Original Message----- From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wilhelm Caster Sent: 29 January 2001 12:58 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: University fund-raising Hi Paul, our act in Germany is split up in a section for the private and in section for the public sector. Following the fund raising discussion I came to the conclusion, that this has been very wise from the act constructors. As your school obviously belongs to the public sector you will not find anything about marketing in the public sector of our act. Conclusion: no problem! Wilhelm Caster Data protection officer Gerling Insurance group -----Original Message----- From: Paul Ticher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:57 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: University fund-raising This discussion has got me thinking. I'm a primary school Governor, and I also train voluntary organisations in Data Protection, so I feel I need to know the answer. I think the issue for me is not so much whether the communication is directed to the individual, as whether it is direct marketing - where the Act's definition is not particularly helpful. My understanding of direct marketing is that it has to be inviting the recipient to enter into a new transaction with the sender. Thus a letter asking parents to contribute to a new classroom fund probably would be direct marketing. A letter inviting them to parents' evening would not be. When our school writes to parents about trips it is usually along the lines of 'we need your permission to take your child out on this trip, and by the way could you pay a few pounds towards it.' I don't see how anyone could require the school not to send them such a letter, as the school has a legal responsibility to get the parent's permission. Leaving aside the question of whether our state schools should be so dependent on direct parental contributions, are we really saying that the DPA requires us to produce two versions of the letter, one for most parents, the other for those who have opted out? I think not, because the opt-out right (s.11 of the Act) states that the data subject can 'require' the data controller 'in writing' not to [process] personal data for the purpose of direct marketing. In our school, letters are sent to parents via the children, by being handed out in class, and with no specific parent's or child's name on each letter. I don't see where any processing of personal data relating to the parents is taking place. Letters posted to the parents at home would involve processing, of course, but if the request for a contribution is incidental to the request for permission, I'd be reluctant to view it as direct marketing. I generally find that the DPA does not force you to behave in illogical ways, but you sometimes have to think round the issue before you can find a way through. Does the above argument make sense to others, or have I missed something here? Paul Ticher Information Management 0116 273 8191 22 Stoughton Drive North, Leicester LE5 5UB ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Brown <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 26 January 2001 12:45 Subject: Re: University fund-raising > Dave > > I don't think your children's school did get round the problem by omitting > your name. Isn't this very similar to direct marketing which is defined as > the targeting of 'particular individuals'? You were targeted as a parent. > I had a conversation on a similar matter with the DPC's new HE/Local > Government Compliance Officer yesterday and he agreed that you don't have to > be named to be targeted as a particular individual. > > Craig > ----------------------------------------------- > Craig S R Brown > Senior Administrative Assistant > Registrar's Office > University of Leicester > University Road > Leicester > LE1 7RH > > Tel: 0116 252 5077 Fax: 0116 252 5000 > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Wyatt [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:33 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: University fund-raising > > > > Sarah > > As a parent and data subject I get approached for no obligation > > contributions to my children field trips but am assured that they will not > > be prejudiced if I fail to contribute. Like many parents I support where I > > can. But hang on I've got the good old DPA to protect me from such > > approaches using the 'guilt' approach. However the school solved that by > > omitting names and having the children bringing the letters home to whom > > it > > may concern. > > > > Reactions using DPA are usually based on volumes of requests in any given > > period or sometimes simply bad day, but opt out is a right individuals > > have > > and can choose to use so I agree it is prudent for all those looking to > > get > > a result from such marketing/fundraising to respect opt out as best > > practice, failure to do so simply builds resistance. > > > > David > > > > > > > >