BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London: Foundation
June 20, 21, 22

London: Practitioner
Starts April 12

Leeds: Practitioner
Starts May 24

Edinburgh: Practitioner
Starts April 25

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts Apr 19

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts June 13

Training/Update/Events
Update: May 16
DP Regulation: May 23
PIA: June 30
DP Audit: July 7

Amberhawk

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

09/12/2012

Comments

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.