ICO Deputy exposes Data Protection law wish list

Last Friday, data protection day, was commemorated with a meeting organised by the Ministry of Justice in Whitehall. At that meeting, David Smith, the Deputy Information Commissioner (DIC), reviewed the Information Commissioner’s wish list of changes to data protection law. This blog reports on the content of that list. …

[Not Fred31]

if you could spell...

...subsidiarity, your article would have more credibility.

[hplasm]

Funny, Isn't it?

How the UK govt is quick to draft exemptions to EU directives when it suits them, not when it would suit us, or save tax payer's money.

[The Metal Cod]

I Wish For

An ICO which has the balls and spine to take action when it is right to do so. Until it starts doing that anything that comes from it's mouth is like the ICO itself - utterly useless.

[dephormation.org.uk]

The ICO and DPA are irrelevant

If BT can escape prosecution for disclosing personal information relating to unproven allegations of pornographic file sharing to the internet... despite a Court Order, despite employing an industry cryptography guru, despite selling email encryption software to their clients, and despite announcing quarterly profits of £1.5nb...

I'm not sure why anyone would take the ICO, the Data Protection Act, or the DIC seriously any more? They have suddenly become irrelevant.

Data Protection Act compliance is now an internal 'disciplinary matter' for organisations.

[Dave Bell]

Meanwhile, in the USA...

How many of us have had dealings with companies based outside the EU? Right now, I have an account with a US company which is trying to persuade customers to sign up with Facebook so as to find out what is happening.

[Fluffykins]

You don't have to go the USA to find naff ideas like that

The NHS is bury looking at getting a close relationshipe with Facebook.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/24/nhs_connect_facebook_privacy_fears/

[copsewood]

cost of a spam

Generally interesting article, but 0.01 to 0.1p is a great underestimate. If it takes 30 seconds to identify a spam as such and delete it, at £12/hour this costs someone's employer 10p. It isn't realistic to value someone's own time at less than what they earn. So this estimate is out by a factor of at least between 100 and 1000 (assuming minimum wages and cost of employment including overheads, buildings, management etc. the same as the wage).

For a spam to cost 0.1p it would have to be capable of being identified and deleted within 0.3 seconds - and I don't think this is realistic.