BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

Edinburgh: Foundation
3, 4 & 5 Oct

London: Practitioner
Starts Nov 13

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts Oct 11

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Nov 27

Training/Update/Events
Update: Nov 20
GDPR: Sept 12 & Oct 6
PIA: Dec 12
DP Audit: Dec 14

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.