David Wyatt on Thursday, February 19, 2004 at 2:31 AM said:-
> IB's comment appear valid to me - From a DPA compliance view
> why would autographs be any different in that context.
That is why this particular type of signature seemed odd, as otherwise,
(provided a signature was not linked to other personal identifying data) it
could have to me. Autographs seemed an exception to that statement - and yet
they are signatures.
E.g. Do people collect autographs without knowing (or thinking they know)
which living individual they belong to, and how to access any particular
one? Ergo they seemed to fall within the definitions and purposes. But they
may not necessarily be linked with any other identifying data.
How that will be dealt with post Durrant seems to be left unanswered. I
guess some people proud of their collections will publish them on the
Internet, or even swap or sell them there. And that is where in my opinion
the higher risks to the data subject will arise. i.e. A high quality digital
image of their signature over which they have no control, internationally
available and easily replicated. And also legitimate to do as far as I am
aware.
Is that sort of situation legitimate in any other circumstances?
Are there existing laws (other than DP) which protect this matter?
Or does it not matter at all?
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
