On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:13:17 -0000, Paul Ticher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>So if at least two members of this list can find possible conditions which
>are satisfied, why didn't the ICO?
The only reason that I can think of for not using the Vital Interests
condition is that the ICO have previously defined this as 'life or death'
issues. Some violence markers may fall under this category, and the ICO may
not have wanted to water down their previous guidance.
I still think that this would be preferable to going completely off
reservation. Fairness is defined by the Act as including the need to meet a
Schedule 2 and/or 3 condition, so how can the ICO say that a consideration
of fairness can outweigh this requirement?
I would rely on 'vital interests' and/or a S29 exemption for prevention of
crime.
Simon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
