follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London: Foundation
Jan 19, 20, 21

Leeds: Practitioner
Starts Oct. 13th

Edinburgh: Practitioner
Starts Nov 2nd

London: Practitioner
Starts Nov 16th

FOI Training
Leeds: Practitioner
Starts Feb 22nd

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Dec. 1st

Update: Oct 19th
DP Regulation: Jan 25th
PIA: Jan 11th
DP Audit: Jan 18th


« Press reporting about Kate’s blagging overlooks data protection angle | Main | Seasonal greetings from all at Amberhawk »



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

Perhaps the ICO comments are intended to be vague as this avoids rocking any boats?

I feel that the ICO sometimes gets confused. I was amused to read in its response to the consulation on the draft local audit bill praise for the transparency of the NFI when it itself found against my F of I request for an Audit Guide relating to one of the NFI exercises, and contested this through to a tribunal appeal, threatening me with costs, and only gave up when, at the suggestion of the judge, I made a repeat request with which the NFI complied, in two stages, with a little more prompting from the judge.

How the same organisation which said that interpretation of a data matching exercise output had to be kept secret can at the same time tell Parliament that the initiative is transparent beats me.

And see the consent order in F of I Appeal EA/2011/0008.

I owe eternal gratitude to Mr M Frankel without whom I might have had a nervous breakdown rather than win my case, especially when they started threatening costs.

Transparency my arse.

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.