BrochuresCartoon

COURSES (ISEB/BCS)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London
Starts April 29th

Leeds
Starts May 1st

London
Starts July 15th

FOI Training
Leeds
Starts June 2nd

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London
Starts June 23rd

Training/Update/Events
Update: May 12th
EU Regulation: April 9th
PIA: April 14th
DP Audit: April 15th

Amberhawk

« Expect Parliamentary Committee to support concerns about the Data Protection Regulation | Main | UK Government opposed to the Commission’s Data Protection Regulation »

08/11/2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0115709c6f9d970b017ee4dfdc53970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Information Commissioner’s enforcement proceedings links Article 8 to unlawful processing.:

Comments

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

You say "if a data controller says on his web-site that he has implemented the CCTV Code of Practice and does no such thing, then this statement is misleading and is likely to result in unfair processing."

I totally agree with you - but this is not just a data processing issue. In the European Union the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices 2005/29/EC “...ensures that consumers are not misled or exposed to aggressive marketing and that any claim made by traders in the EU is clear, accurate and substantiated, enabling consumers to make informed and meaningful choices.”

So if the website is selling any goods and services (rather than just being an information site) then it will be caught by these regulations.

The OFT-BERR GUIDANCE on the UK Regulations (May 2008) implementing the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive makes this very clear in a series of examples

see http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.pdf

Alistair Kelman

Your argument raises the question about whether electoral register and council tax data is being 'fairly' used in data matching to identify people as what the former boss of the NFI just told the ad hoc subcommittee were 'potentially suspicious cases' in respect of a 'single person discount' which has no existence in law and when the FPN itself leads one or directs one to legally misleading or false information. I was told by the ICO that so long as you had been told that your data was being 'used to prevent' fraud the detail of the notification was not something it could look at and that it WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT comment on any individual exercise if this meant commenting on the legal frameworks involved.

I have just submitted evidence to the ad hoc committee citing what the ICO said to me, here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdraftlocaudit/writev/m01.htm

Regarding the code of data matching practice, the Audit Commission wrote this and gave it to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, yet so far from complying with it, it is carrying out data analytics which plainly do not come within it, such as the data matching exercise which identifies houses where a 17 year old is on the electoral register and the liable adult is receiving a 25% discount from the council tax bill. I note that Liberty's evidence on these uses of personal data is on the net, but appears not to have got to the committee on time, and that the ICO response appears, regrettably, to be predicated on the false belief that all 'matches' should be investigated, when in many cases the basis for the investigation is not as the AC often asserts evidence based but statistical

See also here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/16/council-tax-shock-single-person-discount

I have always thought that when councils are failing to administer council tax discount law in accordance with regulations 15 and 20 their uses of personal data to identify people who are NOT in law in the position of claiming to be literally sole occupants as people who ARE in law in the position of claiming just that cannot be 'in accordance with the law', and indeed, that appears to have been the thrust of the argument of the barrister who always said it wan't lawful to use the full electoral register for this purpose.

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.