 |
 |
Good question!
I hadn’t heard of a humble address until this week so I don’t know the parameters for that but I’ve had DPA (and FOI) in my head while thinking of it. The request could have been better worded, but at the same time I think the requester
was trying to avoid giving a loophole. It feels like the request can be parsed to the benefit of both sides of the argument, but I think it should be answered in some form.
It is in the public domain that those people work for the government and work on the subject of prorogation so naming them in the request is reasonable.
I also don’t think the request is necessarily meant to cover, as Gove states that it does, to “seek to understand the private views of those individuals.”. The context of the request is for work-related information,
including professional advice from people employed for that purpose, that may happen to be on personal devices. Which is not unreasonable to want to cover, given previous evidence of government using private accounts to avoid proper scrutiny.
I don’t think the request is meant to cover the private, “God, Mum, prorogation’s a pain” stuff, and it may be seen as somewhat disingenuous of the government to imply that it does. It depends on what the requester
meant and what impact humble address has, but I wasn’t expecting a full-scale confiscation of devices/accounts.
The lawful basis depends on how humble addresses works. If the disclosure is now required by law then that provides a lawful basis. If it doesn’t, I can see arguments for public interest in both Art 6 and 9.
Could 9(f) apply?
I too, am interested in hearing from colleagues with their views.
Victoria Blyth
Information Strategy Manager
Information Management Team
London Borough of Barnet,
2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale,
London NW9 4EW
Tel: 020 8359 2015
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ibrahim Hasan
Sent: 12 September 2019 12:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [data-protection] Yellowhammer
Wonder what colleagues think of Michael Gove’s Yellowhammer release letter?
Particularly the statement about not releasing communications of civil servants and SPADS:
"Moreover, the motion appears to direct the Government to carry out searches that could only be discharged by breaching the legal framework
set by Parliament itself, whether the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the Human Rights Act 1998 implementing the European Convention on Human rights, or the Data Protection Act 2018. Such action would contravene the statutory obligations on the Civil Service
under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to observe the rule of law. That cannot be set aside by a resolution of the House of Commons."
My thoughts:
1. For a start he should be quoting GDPR not DPA 2018.
2. Could processing (disclosure) be justified under GDPR Article 6 anyway? - legal obligation, vital interests, public interests/official authority
Interested in your views.
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
Selected commands (the command has been filled in below in the body of the email if you are receiving emails in HTML format):
All user commands can be found at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/subscribercommands.html and are sent in the
body of an otherwise blank email to
[log in to unmask]
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(Please send all commands to
[log in to unmask] not the list or the moderators, and all requests for technical help to
[log in to unmask], the general office helpline)
This email and any attachments to it are intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or confidential material and should be handled accordingly. However, it is recognised that, as an intended recipient of this email, you may wish to share it with those who have a legitimate interest in the contents.
If you have received this email in error and you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy or print any of the information contained or attached within it, all copies must be deleted from your system. Please notify the sender immediately.
Whilst we take reasonable steps to identify software viruses, any attachments to this email may contain viruses which our anti-virus software has failed to identify. No liability can be accepted, and you should therefore carry out your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents.
Please note: Information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
This message has been scanned by Exchange Online Protection.
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
Selected commands (the command has been filled in below in the body of the email if you are receiving emails in HTML format):
All user commands can be found at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/subscribercommands.html and are sent in the body of an otherwise blank email to [log in to unmask]
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner [log in to unmask]
(Please send all commands to [log in to unmask] not the list or the moderators, and all requests for technical help to [log in to unmask], the general office helpline)