I think the discussion is in danger of being distracted by IT departments
and their capabilities. An IT department will explain happily about
mandatory fields and the ability to suggest that they can mandate the field
but also let someone appear to opt out by expressing "no answer"
This then makes answering the question at all a mandatory exercise. What if
I do not wish to record that I have refused to answer?
We are speaking, I think, of an online collection process in which I have
previously identified myself. Even without a cookie on my computer the
session I am in can record my identity and associate me with my answer.
Despite the genuine social benefits to be gained by ensuring all ethnicities
are integrated into the present society the way to measure this is to survey
the willing. To mandate all is against the spirit of what we are about.
There is an argument that says "If you want to see this part of our web site
then you must answer the question." And the answer to that is that "if the
part of the website has a genuine value then 'ordinary' data may be
collected as a door key to that element of the site." But that should never
extend to sensitive data.
I can not relate a survey containing sensitive answers to an FAQ page. To
me it matters not at all whether it is lawful (if it is lawful) to mandate
the answer. What matters is if it is reasonable to do so. It is reasonable
to *collect* the answers because you may need to consider FAQs in different
tongues, but it is unreasonable to mandate it.
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of GM Polato
Sent: 01 February 2005 12:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Recording ethnicity
The Race Relations Amendment Act could be used here as it imposes a duty on
public authorities to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and to
promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of
different racial groups.
Unless ethnic monitoring is carried out, the authority cannot possibly
demonstrate it is doing either.
The Health Service always included a "not known" or "not stated" category,
to accommodate cases where it would be impossible to collect ethnicity or
where the individual refuses. I personally would prefere a "refuse to
state/refuse to answer" option to be also included, as the refusal rate is a
useful indicator in its own right.
GM Polato
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
