Roland Perry on 28 August 2007 at 10:17 said:-

> Indeed so. That's my view of why they do it (often at the
> instigation of
> their employers).

We have some agreement there, but even that is not straight forward as the
employers consist of groups of individuals who bring their views to play and
make the decisions. Indeed the later part of this discussion seems to have
focused on the importance of discussion, advice and a free exchange of views
as a means of trying to gain some clarity, albeit in a large sense based on
speculative viewpoints. The YouTube actions in removing the Vanessa Brookes
video seems to have stopped a similar thing occurring in a forum she
apparently felt would be informative for her. (Unless of course the
publishing was done with malicious intent).

If that removal is only as a result of YouTube editorial policies as
suggested by Lauren Weinstein, then the basis of those policies probably
needs questioning as there are clearly occasions when a quick strict
decision lacking some broader flexibility in its interpretation of policy
does not allow for individuals on their own to utilise a method of
communications to obtain advice or other viewpoints which could well suit
their needs the best, and where the regulations could allow for various
exemption(s) covering the data collection and subsequent use. (I am thinking
here of a constraint on people who may ordinarily feel it is more difficult
to communicate effectively on a subject using the written word.) One would
expect that if the policies did not allow for such a thing, they would be
legally wrong across the different legal systems in which they probably
operate and would certainly threaten many peoples freedoms.

Do not mistake the basis of my point here, I am not supporting the
widespread and total recording of everything all of the time on a just in
case, or other more obtuse basis for purposes yet to be determined, which my
current views are very strongly against. I am limiting my comments to
instances where a particular circumstance, for particular reasons, in a
particular context would justify that purposive action.

Changing the perspective around, if the videoing had been properly
authorised and conducted in the same circumstances by the social worker, or
whoever the video related to in a work context, because they felt the
organisation was threatened (not physically), for use in a subsequent case
conference or similar to which Vanessa Brookes had no access or knowledge
of, for the purpose of obtaining other views and advice within the
organisation, what difference would have existed; for it is at that point
that what is often termed privacy becomes clearer in some of its social
implementations and hence why many people ascribing to such a constrained
view of privacy often incorrectly express it as only being power based. Even
there different answers do exist, consider the USA Watergate scandal as
containing a similar point about power distribution and balance clearly then
becomes part of that part of the equation making such a viewpoint
politically favourable.

Ian W

> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Roland Perry
> Sent: 28 August 2007 10:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UTube video removed
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, at
> 10:14:52 on Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Ian Welton
> <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >I do not believe I said that people were hiding because they were
> >reluctant to be accountable.
> Indeed so. That's my view of why they do it (often at the
> instigation of
> their employers).
> --
> Roland Perry

     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
 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)