Jump to content

Vexatious Requests to CRT under Freedom of Information Act ?


alan_fincher

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So, do you know how the photos of the three CRT staff were acquired then? 

No, but as I said earlier, it seems unlikely they were photographed eg in their bedrooms by climbing a tree, or on a nudist beach in the Caribbean.  Much more likely they were photographed on the towpath whilst at work.

1 hour ago, NB Lola said:

On this basis there is no breach unless an individual complains.  However, the press has an exemption for journalistic purposes.

 

section 32 I believe

Section 32 of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No, but as I said earlier, it seems unlikely they were photographed eg in their bedrooms by climbing a tree, or on a nudist beach in the Caribbean.  Much more likely they were photographed on the towpath whilst at work.

 

 

If that is the case it is creepy, stalky and unpleasant behaviour. Not really a legitimate news story. 

 

Is it possible the photos were lifted from a website (e.g. CRT)? I haven't seen them. A decent face shot must surely need that telephoto lens mentioned earlier if it is to be taken without the employee's knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the issue of the photos to some extent revolve around what was said in the caption or the accompanying article? 

 

If someone took a picture of me, next to the boat, with a saw in my hand, and had an article on dismembered bodies being found alongside the photo I might be a little cheesed off at the association being made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have colleagues who, as a part of the day job, prepare artists impressions of proposed schemes. They have been told that under the forthcoming GDPR, such images should not be populated by people with recognisable faces - so we will have to either obtain the consent of people to include them in images, or blur the faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that you should seek permission or just used photos that CRT  themselves have published.

 

On the wider point many of these FOI seem to be for minutes of meetings , or topics around these, which CRT themselves say they are happy to publish. However they seemingly avoid doing so for months by which time often the subject is no longer relevant. It should only take a few days for minutes to be agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

That is just what I was wondering, are they CRT photos?

Didn’t someone say they were lifted from Facebook? Or was that simply conjecture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

I agree that you should seek permission or just used photos that CRT  themselves have published.

 

On the wider point many of these FOI seem to be for minutes of meetings , or topics around these, which CRT themselves say they are happy to publish. However they seemingly avoid doing so for months by which time often the subject is no longer relevant. It should only take a few days for minutes to be agreed.

Indeed, they could solve a lot of problems by having the minutes on their website within, say, a week of the meeting - in fact CRT could do to be a lot more transparent generally (e.g. did anyone see the actual risk assessment for Marple Aqueduct that led to the railings?) 

 

However, has no one ever sat in a meeting where someone has said "this is not for minuting"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magpie patrick said:

However, has no one ever sat in a meeting where someone has said "this is not for minuting"

I’ve also sat in meetings where the published minutes specifically excluded a point that I had raised simply because the general manager didn’t want it discussed. (So I ensured that it was listed at the top of the agenda for the next meeting, but that’s irrelevant to this subject)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

No, but as I said earlier, it seems unlikely they were photographed eg in their bedrooms by climbing a tree, or on a nudist beach in the Caribbean.  Much more likely they were photographed on the towpath whilst at work.

Section 32 of what?

Data protection Act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

Data protection Act

Thanks. Do you mean the new one or the old one? And which part of the Act specifies that photographs taken in a public place are data which is protected under the Act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok well presuming you mean the 1998 Act, I say that a photograph is not data as defined in the act, unless it forms part of more personal data held in a record system. Read para 1! A photo on a web page is not covered by the Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Ok well presuming you mean the 1998 Act, I say that a photograph is not data as defined in the act, unless it forms part of more personal data held in a record system. Read para 1! A photo on a web page is not covered by the Act.

These solicitors views would appear to differ.

 

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.uk/site/blog/company-commercial/data-protection-issues-for-photographers

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MJG said:

Do you always believe what you read on an internet blog? If you can explain to me how the Act para 1 can include a photograph published on a website, I’ll reconsider my position but at the moment I can’t see how it could.

 

There is lots of urban myth bullshit on this sort of thing - the same as “health and safety”, “insurance” etc are often misused as attempts at justifying something. “Data protection” is another one of them.

 

Recently I was having some trouble with CAA about my licence. Due to an admitted computer issue at CAA medical department, the licensing department thought I didn’t have a valid medical. When I explained that I did, it was an IT issue and that they should phone their own medical department to confirm, I was told that they weren’t allowed to do that “due to patient confidentiality”. Despite me pointing out that Medical’s IT issue was nothing to do with patient confidentiality, they remained adamant. It was just a lazy excuse for inaction.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Ok well presuming you mean the 1998 Act, I say that a photograph is not data as defined in the act, unless it forms part of more personal data held in a record system. Read para 1! A photo on a web page is not covered by the Act.

See post 19, no exclamation mark needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

See post 19, no exclamation mark needed.

Exclamation mark or not, I can’t see how the definition of data, which is the first definition in para 1, can include a photograph posted on a web page. “Personal data is data...”  (ie a subset of data) and as I said  I fail to see how a photograph on a website could possibly be included in any of the 4 sub-paras which are the definitions of data. But please feel free to explain to me exactly how and why you might think I’m wrong. Am I allowed an exclamation mark now?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Exclamation mark or not, I can’t see how the definition of data, which is the first definition in para 1, can include a photograph posted on a web page. “Personal data is data...”  (ie a subset of data) and as I said  I fail to see how a photograph on a website could possibly be included in any of the 4 sub-paras which are the definitions of data. But please feel free to explain to me exactly how and why you might think I’m wrong. Am I allowed an exclamation mark now?!

That Data Protection Act 1998 and the predecessor is well known to be a woeful piece of legislation given it is built from 95/46/EC  and GDPR is not much better, nor is the new DP Act, in my opinion.  Application in practice and direct experience provides the ability to help the minefield it creates.  I have some 30 years, pray, how many do you have?  The definition of personal data and breach is pretty well covered on the ICO site.  Given you have such difficulty in understanding I suggest you start there. Then, after that start reading through the myriad of case history.  When you are up to speed at that point, we can duel again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Do you always believe what you read on an internet blog? 

no not always. however assuming she doesn't have a pilots licence I wouldn't take her advice over yours in a discussion about flying helicopters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tuscan said:

On the wider point many of these FOI seem to be for minutes of meetings , or topics around these, which CRT themselves say they are happy to publish. However they seemingly avoid doing so for months by which time often the subject is no longer relevant. It should only take a few days for minutes to be agreed.

 

You would think that wouldn't you.

However I don't know how you have found it with NAG, but for the South East Partnership Boaters Subgroup I have pushed like mad in meeting after meeting that the meeting notes, (CRT are inconsistent they are meeting notes not minutes!), should be made available much sooner.

As we only meet around 3 or 4 times a year, and they are often not published to us, let alone on the web-site before the next meeting, CRT line themselves up for criticism they could easily avoid, (along with a lot of the resulting FOIA requests).

There are two views as to why CRT do this, and the FOIA raisers tend to see conspiracy theories about CRT trying to keep stuff secret.  I have never seen that - I think it is just tardiness and poor organisation that causes it.  For a start CRT will not publish ours until approved by the chair of the group, and the local manager, and often this seems not to get seen, and the meeting notes released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the difference between "Minutes of a meeting" and "Notes of a meeting" is that Minutes have to be read out at the next meeting and agreed by those attending that meeting.

 

Notes are less formal and do not.

 

If folks notice when I publish the information of the CRT Press briefings I always write "Notes of.........."

 

"Minutes have a more structured outline eg attendees, agenda etc. Notes are more informal.................... 
minutes are more professional and are usually distributed to all present at the meeting and agreed by all as an accurate record of the conversation/agreements."

 

 

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

That Data Protection Act 1998 and the predecessor is well known to be a woeful piece of legislation given it is built from 95/46/EC  and GDPR is not much better, nor is the new DP Act, in my opinion.  Application in practice and direct experience provides the ability to help the minefield it creates.  I have some 30 years, pray, how many do you have?  The definition of personal data and breach is pretty well covered on the ICO site.  Given you have such difficulty in understanding I suggest you start there. Then, after that start reading through the myriad of case history.  When you are up to speed at that point, we can duel again.

Interesting how rude you become when you can’t answer a simple question / explain how a short paragraph of legislation could be interpreted in the way you want. Tells it all.

 

Considering how the on-line world is littered with photographs of people and yet one never hears of related court cases (except when there has been substantial invasion of privacy) I continue to think you are blustering and making it up.

 

Edit: I had a quick look at the Ico website as you suggested. Not surprisingly its definition of data is identical to that contained in the Act.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Interesting how rude you become when you can’t answer a simple question / explain how a short paragraph of legislation could be interpreted in the way you want. Tells it all.

 

Considering how the on-line world is littered with photographs of people and yet one never hears of related court cases (except when there has been substantial invasion of privacy) I continue to think you are blustering and making it up.

It’s a shame you did not read the links which answer your question far more eloquently than I, added to the fact that you are well known for never accepting when you are beaten.  There was no rudeness, just the clarity you sought when you asked for evidence of my position. Evidence provided.  Try also searching Ibrahim Hassan, a well respected leader in this field.

sadly I will not be providing you with my name, I value my privacy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.