Tim Trent on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 2:52 PM said:-
> Remaining static is unlikely to provide a
> defence to charges unless it was already perfect. Lack of
> audit shows zero interest in compliance, whether notified or not.
Which links back to issues of change and of system v human interaction, as
identified by Ian B's post:-
[log in to unmask] on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 1:57 PM said:-
> Bearing in mind that case, but also the two social workers in
> Newcastle, a number of individuals due to have their
> convictions quashed and a recent case where the police were
> forced by the IC to remove an allegation they had never
> followed up, how can a balance can be maintained?
>
> Has anyone in the discussion group been asked to give
> evidence to Bichard?
Reviews are necessary, but the inclusion of rigid frameworks (all to easy in
the I.T. environment) are not necessarily always beneficial, they have their
own problems. I had understood the police had a flexible framework which
allowed them to retain problematic material for particularly lengthy
periods, provided reviews were conducted at regular intervals. It could be
that is what may be being questioned by the review Ian B mentions, so one
could question if there was any difficulty with the audit mechanisms. I
wonder if any took place?
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|