Breaches must be reported to ICO if there is a risk to the rights and freedoms of the subject. We all understand that we need to "assess the likelihood and severity of the resulting risk to people’s rights and freedoms" in deciding whether to report so that not every trivial breach is reported.
Subjects must be informed if there is a 'high risk' - a more restrictive test.
Is it ever acceptable then, to inform the subject but not the ICO?
Would doing so compromise your ability to argue to the ICO (e.g. if the subject complained to ICO) that it had not in fact met the reporting threshold? If I was ICO I would certainly be asking "If there was no risk why were you upsetting the subject by doing this?"
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
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 https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/subscribercommands.html
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)