Equating this with an individuals personal data rather than organisational
privacy reveals different responses to different circumstances though.
i.e. 1. A Director has one telephone line published externally which is
normally used only for external contacts.
2. That same employee has another telephone number published internally for
internal contacts.
3. That same employee has a further telephone number which is ex-directory
on both internal and external directories for urgent calls from specified
persons.
Each or all could be parked with the PA, on each of the other lines, whilst
3, like 1, would probably also be frequently used internally & externally.
Effectively the numbers would be one (as is more generally practiced with
generic identifiers across internal/major external computer systems), if
differentiation and filtering between incoming callers were always possible
and simple to achieve.
The generically standard publication via FOI could surely alter the working
pattern of the organisation as much as similar actions would affect any
individuals in similar circumstances.
Any considerations then given must surely include the local issues involved
with each number as well as helpfully revealing systemic connections with
external organisations. The potential benefits arising would then seem to
encourage an ongoing review of (or at least focus some attention on)
organisational and environmental issues associated with the matter in hand
and potentially cause some changes.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Antoinette Carter
> Sent: 10 February 2006 13:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Directors telephone numbers
>
>
> I think you would be on very tenuous ground if you did. And
> frankly claiming such an exemption for something as innocuous
> as supplying someone's work telephone number is likely to
> cause you even bigger headaches at a later date. (You can
> just imagine what the Daily Mail would say!!) As I was
> saying yesterday (and this is backed up by the advice given
> by the ICON) senior managers/directors should be held
> accountable to Joe Public; and this may be one way in which
> you can raise the Directors awareness of FOIL as an issue
> that they need to take seriously.
>
> I would suggest that as part of your "duty to consult",
> before making or declaring your own views, you should contact
> the said Directors and ask them if they would object to the
> information being disclosed. If none of them object, you
> disclose. And if they do object, you can use their arguments
> for deciding whether any exemptions are appropriate.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Tim Rodgers
> Sent: 10 February 2006 12:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [data-protection] Directors telephone numbers
>
> As a local authority we have directors of service who have
> PAs. Director's are contacted usually through their PA's
> through a specific number i.e.
> 2000. The director themselves have a direct line - say 2001
> - but this is not common knowledge outside of the organisation.
>
> We now have an FOI request asking for the direct numbers of
> the directors.
> To be honest it's likely that, in practice, these are camped
> on to their PA's but that is besides the point.
>
> A phone number doesn't identify someone as such so I don't
> think we can claim it as personal information, however could
> we claim that revealing this number would be prejudicial to
> our business (e.g. Section 36) in managing the workload of
> our directors?
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please notify the
> sender and delete it.The British Council accepts no liability
> for loss or damage caused by software viruses and you are
> advised to carry out a virus check on any attachments
> contained in this message. Our purpose is to build mutually
> beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other
> countries and to increase appreciation of the UK's creative
> ideas and achievements. The British Council is registered in
> England as a charity.
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.5/256 - Release Date: 2/10/06
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
