Comments on: UK Government data sharing http://www.600days.com/2009/06/uk-government-data-sharing/ Creating a web platform, and improving the world by generating profit for good causes Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:43:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Above and Beyond http://www.600days.com/2009/06/uk-government-data-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-1198 Above and Beyond Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:22:05 +0000 http://www.600days.com/?p=165#comment-1198 Gateway.gov.uk is anything but open, and I also thought this down to the DPA - so the interpretations of the DPA listed are interesting. More information would be useful for me too. Gateway.gov.uk is anything but open, and I also thought this down to the DPA – so the interpretations of the DPA listed are interesting.

More information would be useful for me too.

]]> By: bretthusbands http://www.600days.com/2009/06/uk-government-data-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-1193 bretthusbands Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:27:26 +0000 http://www.600days.com/?p=165#comment-1193 Guy, Thank you for the comment - It would make things easier if everybody shared your interpretation of the DPA. What you are saying is in the spirit of what was intended, and certainly concurs with my understanding of the concepts. The letter of the law, and importantly the accompanying guidance, is more ambiguous and tends to support the belief that you had when you started reading it. Better guidance would help, though I think that the issue is more cultural. Data Protection Officers, or whatever they are called now (Information Officers?) are often the guardians of "No" - and many of the legal departments are just as likely to be looking at buying trucks or employment law as dealing with this subject. Cases like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1659807.stm have caused further confusion as people follow the hearsay version (Accountant from Wakefield gave one in the eye to "the man" because of a clear abuse without signified consent) rather than reading the case. What is really happening on the ground is that organisations take the safest route, starting with blank systems, and joining up customer records and cleaning data as they go, being careful to get consent and record it. Misunderstood or not, the common practice has the organisation balancing the needs of the customer against the earlier (mis?)interpretation. Do you have any useful references that supports what you are saying that we could share more widely - anything that pushes the conversation and understanding forward, particularly clear government documentation, would help. Guy, Thank you for the comment – It would make things easier if everybody shared your interpretation of the DPA. What you are saying is in the spirit of what was intended, and certainly concurs with my understanding of the concepts. The letter of the law, and importantly the accompanying guidance, is more ambiguous and tends to support the belief that you had when you started reading it.

Better guidance would help, though I think that the issue is more cultural. Data Protection Officers, or whatever they are called now (Information Officers?) are often the guardians of “No” – and many of the legal departments are just as likely to be looking at buying trucks or employment law as dealing with this subject.

Cases like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1659807.stm have caused further confusion as people follow the hearsay version (Accountant from Wakefield gave one in the eye to “the man” because of a clear abuse without signified consent) rather than reading the case.

What is really happening on the ground is that organisations take the safest route, starting with blank systems, and joining up customer records and cleaning data as they go, being careful to get consent and record it. Misunderstood or not, the common practice has the organisation balancing the needs of the customer against the earlier (mis?)interpretation.

Do you have any useful references that supports what you are saying that we could share more widely – anything that pushes the conversation and understanding forward, particularly clear government documentation, would help.

]]> By: Guy Herbert http://www.600days.com/2009/06/uk-government-data-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-1191 Guy Herbert Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:56:17 +0000 http://www.600days.com/?p=165#comment-1191 On your point 2, you have misunderstood the protections against data-sharing in English Law, most of which also exist in US law. The Data Protection Act is a feeble piece of legislation which is also misunderstood by most of those who blame it for thisngs they can't do, or purport to apply it in refusing to do things they don't want to. It confuses things a lot, because it overlays other more important principles, and because both its fans and its detractors exaggerate its importance. The issue you describe is one of both ultra vires and common law confidentiality. Information that is confidential cannot be used except for the purpose for which it is given. Quite separately an official body cannot do something it has no legal power to do. These are vital protections of the citizen against the power of government agencies in Britain, where there are no constitutional constraints on the executive. On your point 2, you have misunderstood the protections against data-sharing in English Law, most of which also exist in US law. The Data Protection Act is a feeble piece of legislation which is also misunderstood by most of those who blame it for thisngs they can’t do, or purport to apply it in refusing to do things they don’t want to. It confuses things a lot, because it overlays other more important principles, and because both its fans and its detractors exaggerate its importance.

The issue you describe is one of both ultra vires and common law confidentiality. Information that is confidential cannot be used except for the purpose for which it is given. Quite separately an official body cannot do something it has no legal power to do. These are vital protections of the citizen against the power of government agencies in Britain, where there are no constitutional constraints on the executive.

]]>