This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi there, can I ask what you think would be the better one of the the principles on the article or the one that I wrote?
Personal data must be:
according to the page history, this was posted by User:62.253.245.4 at 08:52, 15 September 2005.
I once or twice heard that a change in the law was in the works to ban the opt-out boxes on application forms, requiring them to be opt-in boxes instead. Does anyone know what's happened to this law?
And I still can't understand why, when the electoral registers finally stopped being a total violation of the current DPA, they didn't make the edited register opt-in from the start. -- Smjg 12:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I am aware this was never going to be law. There is guidance from the [Direct Marketing Association]about this, and also from the [Office of the Information Commissioner] - check the document library. It is still OK to have "opt-out" check boxes, but the wording of the question must be made very clearly.
This article is really about the Data Protection Act (in general) not just the 1984 version (eg, the 1998 version redirects here). Should it be renamed, or is the naming convention to always include a year? --h2g2bob 20:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Data Protection Act. —Centrx→talk • 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to remove the stupid comments put on by IP addresses 217.65.158.119 and 82.22.127.233. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wakimakirolls (talk • contribs) .
EDIT: Can we have a lock on this page? This page keeps getting vandalised. Or at least ban the IP—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wakimakirolls (talk • contribs) .
Unrelated note: Fixed a grammatical error, 'an' in place of 'a'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.21.64 (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
any info on what affect this act has on isp's releasing ip addresses of customers to cops?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.155.254 (talk • contribs) .
Say you want to set up an online company where you need to store peoples addresses (not their credit card details) so you can sent them their items that they purchased. Would that company have to register or can they simply ask the customer that its ok to store their address details and then store their details securely—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.66.64.99 (talk • contribs).
From you example above, I would say that you would have to register. If you are not sure, then go to the Information Commissioner's web site and use their on-line checking tool that asks questions as to how you will use the data and then recommends whether or not you need to register. If you are a data controller (in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998) then you will need to be registered.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howarthss (talk • contribs).
I removed the following from the end of the first section of the article. A Wikipedia article is not the place to make this kind of complaint, and this tone is inappropriate.
i.e. you can use a telephone 'Directory Enquiry' type service to request an individuals home telephone number, which they will readily give but they will refuse to confirm the individuals address or postcode. Then on the other hand companies such as http://www.192.com are displaying and selling personally information. The ACT states that the detail holder i.e. YOU, has the right for the information to be removed however such companies such as 192, have stated that you dont have the right to ask them to remove it. In this situtation you will need to send a complain to the ICO. 192 hides behind a form they have created to get the information removed however a email to them asking them to remove your details should be ok under the act for them to act however they and other companies like them once you fill this form in or send emails to them still dont remove your details.
- Lee Stanley 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the eight principles of the data protection act have 9 items on the list? 217.172.55.251 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The second (Staffordshire University DPA FAQ) and third (DPA contents page on OPSI site) citations don't seem to support the points they are making.
Think we should remove them?
--CaNNoNFoDDa 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool, i'll swap that link over. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaNNoNFoDDa (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The fourth citation no longer points to the correct place, the new location is http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/correcting_inaccurate_personal_data.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.48.145 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.161.243 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
i would like to know too why we can consider that Databases are more worry than ID cards?
thank you for your answers....a french student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.226.56 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.19.110 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, was looking in the totally wrong part of the act! --SG Gower (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have renamed this "Problems of Interpretation". The previous text stating that it was possible to devise systems which meet the letter but breach the spirit of the Act is simply untrue. Anything which breached the spirit of the Act would necessarily be unfair and accordingly fall foul of the 1st principle which requires all processing to be fair and lawful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggthang (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The whole section on what is personal data is nonsense. It is not really a subjective definition. Whilst the subject needs to be identifiable from data held (or likely to be) by the controller, the controller himself does not need to be able to identify. For example if I visit London and get my photo captured clearly on CCTV of Westminster Council, that is personal data, even though no-one in the Council can possibly identify me. I will tidy this up shortly. The real issues lie elsewhere. NB I am a practising DP officer and trainer ... --Eggthang (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The 1984 act listed the following as sensitive areas, stating that information about named individuals should only go into a computer with good reason:
Religious, political and other beliefs;
Health and sexuality;
Conviction of a criminal record;
Racial origin.
However, in the 1998 act, a fifth sensitive area was added - trade union membership. This should surely go here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A number of references linking to ico.gov.uk seem to have died. Could someone please help finding the correct pages? Thanks. Andersenman (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
After searching for information on the 1984 implementation and observing little or no information with regard to the act, I looked up the talk page here and found that back in 2006 it had been repurposed from an article into a Re-direct to the most recent implementation, the argument being that the 1984 implementation had been repealed in the past and a new incarnation was brought in to fill the older act's purpose. (See the related discussion from 2006 here: Talk:Data_Protection_Act_1998#Rename)
As a result, information regarding a law which in turn defined and shaped how we handle information is rather hard to find, being little more than a stub or subtle mention when found following substantial digging. The closest I could find was Information_privacy_law#United_Kingdom. A four line paragraph which did make mention of criticism of the repeal and the intelligence agency's new rights under the proposed replacement, an example being given from Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, called the plans “a systematic attack on the right to privacy.”. The quote came with a citation, found here Information_privacy_law#cite_note-7.
Key to the importance of raising concern is that the 1984 Data Protection Act was repealed. It was not ammended. It was not reworded. It was repealed. It was canned in it's entirety and a replacement article was written from scratch, reviewed and implemented in stages, just as if it were a new act being proposed for the first time. Though the 1998 Data Protection Act has similarities and the same name, the fact the original was repealed, establishes the two acts as being distinctly seperate from each other, albiet seperate acts with similarities. However, at the same time, differences which result in the legalisation of actions which under the previous act would have been clear breach of the act.
Even further searches the history of content on the Data Protection Act here on wikipedia revealed futher information, such as a point raised further up on this talk page in a discussion with regard to the points of the act taken straight from the act itself, the section can be seen here; Talk:Data_Protection_Act_1998#Neither. The section demonstrates how the rules in both acts may be similar at times but differ at others greatly, not just in interpretation or in a mild rewording, but rather a complete rewrite to directly allow activity which was previously a distinct violation of the 1984 Data Protection Act. It also makes mention of the fact this article is about the 1984 act and makes the point of pointing that out, going on to reject the alteration of the article's list of rules on the basis that the proposed changes were descriptive of the 1998 Data Protection Act, which was argued as being not fitting for the pupose of the article. There were no futher counterpoints made in criticism of this reply.
This shows three things of importance.
A further assumption can be made from the lack of discussion here on the talk page on such a key change to an article.
Showing that this descision was either:-
-OR-
Now following that extensive wall of text, the question I ask is Isn't Wikipedia meant to act as an encyclopedia and not hold bias to current points of view? (See the specific section on this form of Systemic bias here Wikipedia:Recentism#Article_imbalance))
As a result, repealed or not, shouldn't the 1984 Data Protection Act have it's own sub-section on an article regarding UK Legisation on Data Protection or It's own article concerning the 1984 implementation?
For example, such an article could also go into detail on the criticism and praise it received along with events that lead to the repeal of the act. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Uwhat (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Declined nothing to do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The page mentions the "Durant case", what is this there's no page about it to link to?Railwayfan2005 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)