In message
<[log in to unmask]>,
at 08:29:11 on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Tim Turner <[log in to unmask]>
writes
>The problem with this is that even if the person who uploads the images
>onto YouTube has breached the Data Protection Act, the only way in which
>action can be taken against them is if YouTube admit who did it. And
>presumably, it's entirely possible to put clips onto YouTube without the
>company actually know who you are.
That's not the point, really, as infringing material is infringing, even
if the poster was anonymous. YouTube's policies should be about the
nature of the infringement, not the person who uploaded it. Although I
could see some grey areas where they could claim that the clips didn't
involve anyone from the UK/EU, although witnesses might be able to put
them right about that in the fullness of time.
>So even if a law has been breached, it's still going to be YouTube's
>choice as to whether to take it down on the basis that it would be
>difficult to take them to court here to obtain the name of the uploader.
Most ISPs have policies that allow them to reveal what [maybe little]
they know, to law enforcement, without needing to go to the courts, as
long as the correct paperwork is done. But that does require them to be
minded to co-operate at all (despite the potential legal ramifications
of not).
>Going back to the original story about the lady and her social workers,
>under FOI, the Information Commissioner has been doing a very determined
>job of drawing a line between personal data held by a public authority
>about its employees' personal and private business, and data about its
>employees doing their job. Even though he often accepts that data about
>employees doing their jobs has a personal aspect to it, he stills orders
>it to be disclosed.
Surely all that's doing is confirming that these things are personal
data, and making distinctions between different sorts of personal data
(for FOI purposes) that aren't necessarily relevant for DPA purposes.
>Would the lady have needed consent? She might have had another
>condition for processing, at least as far as recording the
>conversations,
I'd be interested (as a separate issue) to fully understand what's
allowed by way of such recordings, if they are only used privately by
the interviewee. After all, people are allowed to make written notes
about the person interviewing them (I assume).
>even if she didn't have a condition for putting it on YouTube (and I'm
>not saying she couldn't justify doing that, I just don't know).
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|