Common! maybe more accurately uncommon sense.
Was Lord Falconers reported opinion a political, or considered legal one?
Even interpreting Lord Faulkner’s considered comments as being made in the
context of his political role and needs rather than a more considered legal
role, the affect on DP is significant.
How did the police deal with compliance with their DP notifications, which
require compliance with their own policies and procedures when disclosing
personal data, when the reported outcome from those policies and procedures
was - there was insufficient risk to warrant disclosure?
With the police being reported as disclosing the photographs, and if the
reported opinion was a political one, are the police reviewing their
policies and procedures to allow for the direct exercise of political
opinions at variance with policy or procedural findings when processing
personal data? Those policies and procedures are certainly within their
direct control and facilitating such exceptional intervention would simplify
many of the difficult management choices by facilitating a more
Are the professionals in all the organisations involved who apparently
independently and consistently provided advice on the level of risk to the
public at variance to that perceived by Lord Falconer being retrained. Are
the policies and any guidance which directed those professionals in their
decision processes being amended? Is any regulation which determined those
policies to be reviewed?
Is Lord Falconer legally right or wrong, is he politically right or wrong?
Does the reported view mean that the media should be left to determine
proportionality for purpose, and any other considerations should be ignored?
A great deal of the supporting policy guidance for the Human Rights Act and
supporting DP policy was reported as having gone through The Lord
Chancellors office for expert legal consideration. Was that opinion wrong;
if so is the Lord Chancellors office to be retrained in light of subsequent
If the underlying philosophy of the reported statement causing the
disclosure was a 'might = right' one, which would certainly be consistent
with many political and legal approaches to many privacy matters, does this
mean that DP will always be in the wrong when unpopular matters are
considered. If so the implications for DP practitioners might be very clear,
and the DPA would seem superfluous.
Does the ICO's statement mean that they abide by a potential breach of
notification provided policies and procedures exist?
Whilst I agree with those who point out that political questions need to be
aired in political arenas, I dispute that the implementation of an apparent
decision considered at variance to the regulation, policy and procedure by
so many experts across different organisations and professions is not an
area which should be of significant legitimate interest to DP practitioners
in their day to day work of attempting to match personal data management to
the needs of an organisation. If those issues were not of any DP interest
red tape would rule and organisations would forever be at odds with any
authoritively perceived social change.
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:31:22 -0000
From: "Broom, Doreen" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Disclosure
In any event, common-sense has prevailed - they have now been published!!!
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: 07 January 2007 11:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Disclosure
The point has been put that it may be unlawful to publish a photo of an
absconder who had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, but was not
classified as a danger to the public.
The question seemed to be, is this right under the DPA (as interpreted by
s.3 of the HRA)? The offenders Art.8 rights are clearly engaged.
My point is that such publication /is/ compatible with the offenders
Convention rights and lawful under the DPA because of the nature of the
qualification in Art.8 itself. Nothing to do with criminology.
Others may wish to discuss social policy. I don't.
Nick Landau wrote:
> You have chopped who you are responding to.
> I am not aware that anyone in this discussion would strongly object to
> your statement that:
> "It is in the wide interests both of public safety and of the=20
> prevention of crime and disorder, that absconders are caught and=20
> returned to their place of incarceration, even if the individuals
> are=20 not an imminent public danger."
> I would imagine that a criminology or probation discussion group might
> be better suited to discussing these aspects which seem to be
> outside=20 the remit of this group.
> Nick Landau
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 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)