Mike :
Some thoughts from my analysis of the auto processing section.
My reading of this right (Section 12 DPA 98) is that an individual can ask
in advance not to be subject to an auto decision making process in advance
of that process.
An auto decision process being any which :
a) has an effect which significantly effects the data subject and
b) be based soley on automatic means.
If individuals exercised their right e.g. by a footnote to their examination
paper to not auto process then it is arguable a breach occurs should such
processing proceed in a manner which did not incorporate a manual review
before the examination result was communicated to the individual.
The key points here, given a strict and literal reading of the legislation,
is that a receipt of a prior notification of an objection to automatic
processing requires a manual assessment of all results giving a significant
effect to an individual. This should be as part of continued processing
after the automatic processing stage BEFORE notification of that effect.
(The Act refers simply to a decision which significantly effects an
individual. This does not necessarily have to be an exam failure mark - but
it is hard to envisage the individual complaining about the signicant
effects of a pass with distinction result).
Where no prior objection to such processing is raised but the processing is
again automatic then data controllers must subsequently notify individuals
as soon as practicable after the processing that an automatic decision
occurred and answer and review any challenges which arise within 21 days.
There is an exemption condition which is referred to in Section 12
subsection 7b) which appears to assist. This indicates a notification to not
be subject to such processing is nullified, provided a data controller has
taken steps to safeguard the legitimate interests of the data suject by
allowing him to make representations.
Therefore a solution seems to be to always notify individuals that automatic
processing occurs and provide a point of contact to where representations
can be made for review. Place this notice at the top of impacted examination
papers to nullify any footnotes being added by all those well informed law
students.
David Wyatt
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd M J B (ISaCS) <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 July 1999 11:32
Subject: New DP Act and automated assessment of students
>
> We are beginning to see use of products such as Question Mark being
piloted
> for automated testing of students' progress.
>
> At some stage, I anticipate this will be used for more formal assessment.
> What are the implications now that individuals will have rights to object
to
> decisions based "solely" on automatic methods? Will our exam boards be
> sufficient to cover us by stating that there is human intervention in the
> decision making process?
>
>
>
> Mike Lloyd
> Assistant Head (Academic Support )
> Information Systems and Campus Services
> University of Glamorgan
> Llantwit Road
> Treforest CF37 1DL
>
> Tel: 01443 482417 Fax: 01443 482426
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|