BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London: Foundation
4, 5 & 6 July

London: Practitioner
Starts March 28

Edinburgh: Practitioner
Starts May 8

Leeds: Practitioner
Starts June 6

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts May 16

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts June 26

Training/Update/Events
Update: April 3
GDPR: April 19
PIA: June 21
DP Audit: June 22

Amberhawk

« Privacy, Press, the super injunctions Review and anonymous use of Twitter | Main | Government approach to any new Data Protection Directive revealed by Minister's speech »

23/05/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The last two articles on injuctions highlight some home truths relating to the protection of personal data within the legal arena, but in their focus seem too tight to allow full consideration of the issues, as you appear to have recognised, and somewhat corrected in the second article. Because of those wider issues raised I would like to ask the following questions about possible interest considerations:-

1. Do legal regimes require a method for obtaining details of persons publishing items on the internet, or social networking sites, if they are to be able to function, and do they wish to function?
2. Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an issue at stake?
3. What assumptions necessarily exist to maintain the accepted focus regarding the twitter disclosures on this matter?
4. Which of all the parties involved is right or wrong in disclosing/attempting to hide information and why is that information being used in the way it is by the parties concerned? (Something the second blog item begins to consider.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.