BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS)
follow link for detail

Data Protection/GDPR Training

DP Practitioner
December 6-10 (5 days)

DP Foundation
Nov 16-18 (3 days)

DP Practitioner
Jan 25-27 & Feb 8-10 (6 days)

Training/Update/Events
Conference: tbc
PIA: tbc
DP Audit: tbc

Amberhawk

« Draft Code of Practice on City Centre CCTV neglects data protection obligations | Main | UK plans for incompatible processing undermines data protection for individuals »

22/09/2021

Comments

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

This is a brilliant analysis. Coming from a chemist, I was particularly amused (but also concerned and grateful) for your observations about social science and Margaret Thatcher. Even ‘hard’ science is a social question.
I had wondered whether the underlying motivation for these proposals was to ‘clarify’ the definition of research in order to facilitate private sector use of public data. Incorporation of the recitals into law (perhaps slightly amended) might be the vehicle for achieving this by making it clear that ‘privately funded research’ (and privately exploited findings) falls within the research provisions.
I also agreed with your comments about the ethics of research. I wonder if you might persuade the Royal Society or British Academy or the RSA to set up a small group to engage forcefully with these egregious proposals.

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.