I have read the judgeemnt a couple of times and your blog Chris.
I am still a little perplexed by the overall meaning of this.
The key point appears to be that a piece of legislation allowing you to exchange data doesn't necessarily absolve you from the requirement to inform persons that you are exchanging that data.
It doesn't appear to make any changes to consent, merely that you must infrom the person that you are exhcnaging their data.
What I am a bit confused about is whether the judgement has completely swept away the Article 13 justifications for not informing subjects (not helped by the fact that the data in question in the case doesn't fall into those areas).
As a prosecuting organisation it's been pretty easy to date to ignore the processing notice where data relating to crime is concerned. Obviously we regualrly exchange data back and forth with the police and other investigative organisations about cases which is not covered by any particualr statute. We've assumed we've been covered by the equivalent articles in the DPA. We've only had to consider this aspect when sharing data beyond this, for example with victim support organisations.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Seth Speirs
ADSO
Public Prosection Service
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
