Jump to content

Vexatious Requests to CRT under Freedom of Information Act ?


alan_fincher

Featured Posts

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1554/determining-what-is-personal-data.pdf

 

Pages 15 and 16 seem pretty clear to me. It depends on what the information (image) is being used for. If it's incidental that somebody from CRT has been caught in a photo then this is not the same as publishing a photo for the specific purpose of identifying an individual who works for CRT. Even if that photo was taken by A N Other but has subsequently been used by someone else for that purpose.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

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.

Quite happy accept a logical and reasoned argument, but so far that has been absent. I am certain you can find internet links that “prove” your point, equally I can find some that show the earth is flat and aliens are living amongst us. I tend to go to the “horse’s mouth” which is the legislation, rather than someone with an agenda’s opinion. Your rudeness was to say that I had difficulty understanding etc, in other words demeaning me in order to try to win your point, a point for which you have provided no “horse’s mouth” justification other than some internet links. It is a lazy and discourteous way to try and win an argument. And when you give the “I’ve been doing it for 30 years” bit, you are clearly blustering.

51 minutes ago, MJG said:

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.

Probably very sensible. But it is not about her opinion vs mine, it is about her opinion vs the text in the Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MJG said:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1554/determining-what-is-personal-data.pdf

 

Pages 15 and 16 seem pretty clear to me. It depends on what the information (image) is being used for. If it's incidental that somebody from CRT has been caught in a photo then this is not the same as publishing a photo for the specific purpose of identifying an individual who works for CRT. Even if that photo was taken by A N Other but has subsequently been used by someone else for that purpose.

Correct - sort of! It’s all about whether the data is being “processed” or not. I suggest that a photograph on a web page is not being ”processed” in any way, it is just static, unchanged from when it was captured, and likely to remain so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Probably very sensible. But it is not about her opinion vs mine, it is about her opinion vs the text in the Act.

It is exactly that. She is legally qualified to give an informed opinion, based on her experience, skill set and extensive training. 

 

You however are not.

 

In a debate when looking for evidence to support an opinion I usually find it pays to seek out some supporting evidence that one persons opinion carries some sway over anothers. So far you don't appear to be able to produce anything (unless I missed it) other than your (untrained legal interpretation) of the wording in the act.

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Correct - sort of! It’s all about whether the data is being “processed” or not. I suggest that a photograph on a web page is not being ”processed” in any way, it is just static, unchanged from when it was captured, and likely to remain so.

I would suggest if you are using a photo specifically to identify an individual who works for CRT then you are indeed 'processing' it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MJG said:

It is exactly that. She is legally qualified to give an informed opinion, based on her experience, skill set and extensive training. 

 

You however are not.

 

In a debate when looking for evidence to support an opinion I usually find it pays to seek out some supporting evidence that one persons opinion carries some sway over anothers. So far you don't appear to be able to produce anything (unless I missed it) other than your (untrained legal interpretation) of the wording in the act.

I would suggest if you are using a photo specifically to identify an individual who works for CRT then you are indeed 'processing' it.

But I didn’t particularly have an opinion beyond the “plain English” interpretation of the words in the Act. As I said, happy to be proven wrong but I would need a rational explanation, not just a “because I say so” type of explanation which is all I have so far received from our resident self-styled expert.

 

As you say it boils down to the definition of “processing” and having looked it up I see that the Act considers merely storing it to be processing it. Which is a bit odd because if I take your photo on my iPhone the image apparently becomes subject to the DPA. Whether or not I then put it on the Internet is of no consequence. Something which seems rather odd to me and I wonder if any individual storing pictures of people on their phones becomes a “data controller” in the eyes of the Act. Or does it just apply to some sort of “organisation”? In the car at the moment (not driving!) so I will have to have a trawl through the entire Act later to see if there is any individual is considered a “data controller” or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

But I didn’t particularly have an opinion beyond the “plain English” interpretation of the words in the Act. As I said, happy to be proven wrong but I would need a rational explanation, not just a “because I say so” type of explanation which is all I have so far received from our resident self-styled expert.

 

As you say it boils down to the definition of “processing” and having looked it up I see that the Act considers merely storing it to be processing it. Which is a bit odd because if I take your photo on my iPhone the image apparently becomes subject to the DPA. Whether or not I then put it on the Internet is of no consequence. Something which seems rather odd to me and I wonder if any individual storing pictures of people on their phones becomes a “data controller” in the eyes of the Act. Or does it just apply to some sort of “organisation”? In the car at the moment (not driving!) so I will have to have a trawl through the entire Act later to see if there is any individual is considered a “data controller” or not.

 

The thing is this type of thing cannot normally be proven conclusively either way unless tested in a court, and my point was in the absence of any case law (that I am aware of at least) on balance in this particular discussion I would take the the view of a solicitor over somebody who has no legal training what so ever. (That is not so say solicitors are never wrong of course!!).

 

The key bit in terms of your quote above is this I believe,

 

Therefore, data may not be personal data in the hands of one data
controller (for example, the estate agent)
but the same data may
be personal data in the hands of another data controller (for
example, the police) depending on the purpose of the processing
and the potential impact of the processing on individuals.

 

So I read that as although it may indeed be defined that you have 'processed' the image you have taken of me it's what you then do with it after you have taken it that matters as in whether it becomes personal data or not.

 

 

 

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its fairly normal that the minutes of a meeting are approved at the next meeting; and that before they are approved, they are unsuitable for wider distribution. I am personally surprised that so few understand this concept.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I will have to have a trawl through the entire Act later to see if there is any individual is considered a “data controller” or not.

A data controller must be a “person” recognised in law, that is to say:

individuals;
organisations; and
other corporate and unincorporated bodies of persons.

 

From here.

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-definitions/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

All I can say is lol.  I have sent you a pm.  Please do not share the personal data therein save to apologise publicly on his forum without releasing my name.

You have sent me a slightly weird PM which I don’t really understand, just giving what may be your real name. Not sure why you would be so desperate to remain anonymous (ie I'm wondering what you have to hide!) but never mind, your wish is of course respected. But you will have to explain what it is I am to apologise for before I can consider whether it is a reasonable request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Something which seems rather odd to me and I wonder if any individual storing pictures of people on their phones becomes a “data controller” in the eyes of the Act

It (possibly; I'm no expert) depends on the context of the image and any other data. It's not against the DPA or any variant of it to admit that an address of "1 High St" exists but if you assign that address to an individual, then it becomes personal data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its fairly normal that the minutes of a meeting are approved at the next meeting; and that before they are approved, they are unsuitable for wider distribution. I am personally surprised that so few understand this concept.

Likewise

 

However, depending on the frequency of the meeting this may cause issues itself; releasing the minutes of the April meeting in May is OK and logical, possibly the release of the AGM minutes following the next AGM are not (unless the business of the AGM is so glacial in speed as to not matter). In fact many entries in the AGM's I'm privileged (?) to attend are on the lines of "appoint auditors for the next financial year" so if the 2018 auditors couldn't be appointed until the minutes were agreed in 2019 we'd never get the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

My second message made it clear, search my name and recognise I am not “blustering” or just go quiet.  

I think you should look up the definition of “blustering” before you make yourself look too silly! I don’t particularly want you to then go quiet, but it would be nice if you participated in the conversation in a more explanatory and less dogmatic and pompous way!

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NB Lola said:

I have provided perfectly good evidence surrounding photos, the reading link is wholly supported by me as an adequate description, why I should elucidate further I know not and will not.

Shame! Maybe it’s a “knowledge is power” thing?

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Shame! Maybe it’s a “knowledge is power” thing?

So once again an interesting thread has degenerated into petty point scoring. I thought after the last surge of complaints about this forum there were signs that it had settled down, but it seems that it was wishful thinking on my behalf, and the playground mentality has  come back. For goodness sake kep to the topic.

 

Howard

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, howardang said:

So once again an interesting thread has degenerated into petty point scoring. I thought after the last surge of complaints about this forum there were signs that it had settled down, but it seems that it was wishful thinking on my behalf, and the playground mentality has  come back. For goodness sake kep to the topic.

 

Howard

Which is why I have just skipped 2 pages which seams par for the coarse now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Which is why I have just skipped 2 pages which seams par for the coarse now

Well perhaps you should have a word with a moderator?

 

Oh hang on a sec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1st ade said:

Likewise

 

However, depending on the frequency of the meeting this may cause issues itself; releasing the minutes of the April meeting in May is OK and logical, possibly the release of the AGM minutes following the next AGM are not (unless the business of the AGM is so glacial in speed as to not matter). In fact many entries in the AGM's I'm privileged (?) to attend are on the lines of "appoint auditors for the next financial year" so if the 2018 auditors couldn't be appointed until the minutes were agreed in 2019 we'd never get the job done.

I am not sure there are actually any issues which occur due to the delay of approved minutes being more widely distributed. Those at a meeting which had things to do, would have taken note and actioned them. Anything to be put into the public eye - for example a new initiative or project etc - would have been publicised by alternate means anyway. If the wider distribution is only for the benefit of the likes of Richard/Jenlyn/The Floater/NBW etc then the value of their timeliness is somewhat minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with meeting notes of advisory groups like the Partnerships taking a long while to appear, is that it allows the conspiracy theorists to construct stories that things are being discussed and agreed that CRT wish to keep hidden.

 

One of the names in your above list even claimed a while back that some that had been published were later taken down again.  I actually followed that one through exhaustively at the time, and the claim was quite wrong.  However the conspiracy theorists couldn't fuel their web pages and blog posts half as much if they did not invent some stuff that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think CRT could, and should, get the notes out quicker, but whilst I have had some success in getting them to, each change of staff, (and there have been plenty), tends to make it go back into a black hole, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul C said:

Its fairly normal that the minutes of a meeting are approved at the next meeting; and that before they are approved, they are unsuitable for wider distribution. I am personally surprised that so few understand this concept.

There is no foundation in the comparatively recent practice of not publishing minutes until they have been approved by a subsequent meeting. They can legally be published with the proviso that they are labelled as draft minutes subject to approval at the next meeting. I have served on numerous public and charitable committees in the past, and cannot recall one that waited until the following meeting before publishing the minutes, furthermore the number of times that any material changes were made to minutes prior to approval was almost non existent.

 

I am convinced that some committees, particularly in the public sector hide behind the arguement that unapproved minutes cannot be published, in order to delay or prevent members of the public raising any issues discussed at the meeting, until it is too late for their contribution to have any significant impact. Our local Parish Council used to only publish their minutes until after the following meeting, on the grounds that they had not been aproved. Having served some years as Parish Clerk for a number of years I knew that this was an erroneous arguement, and asked them what the legal foundation for the change in practice was. They were unable to find one, and have reverted to the earlier practice of publishing draft minutes marked subject to approval.

 

If the C&RT wish to reduce the number of FOI requests they receive for minutes of meetings, perhaps they should look at the practice of other organizations who are more enthusuastic about the public being appropriately infomed about their discussions and decisions.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally??? I'm not aware of the legal obligation (specifically) for CRT to publish minutes at all; or a legally defined timeframe to do so. While its probably true to say that "best practice" would suggest (draft) minutes are published in a timely manner, I think we're diverging slightly from what the underlying issue is.

 

Its not about the minutes, its about one or a few individuals in particular, who are maybe abusing the FOI process for their own self-importance/amusement. If its not the minutes then its something else, and if its not that then its something else again. There's nothing stopping people making reasonable use of the FOI process; but there is a procedure for stopping vexatious use of it - and CRT have initiated it. Let's see what the Information Commissioner's Office makes of it all.

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.