The DPA provides some new protection for anyone wanting to build a protective 'wall' between themselves and the Society who are now having to accomodate a whole new level of legislation.
This same legislation can be used for our own benefit. Withdraw consent from your local congregation/branch office/headquarters to hold information against you and you will effectively become a non-person.
It then becomes very difficult [not impossible] for action to be taken against you.
The following may prove interestin;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article appeared in The Herald on 19 January 2000. It was written by Sunila Jandial, of Shepherd & Wedderburn's Employment Law Unit.
Prepare for pitfalls of Data Protection Act
TIME is running out for organ-isations which hold personal information about individuals but have yet to take appropriate steps to ensure their house is in order ahead of the Data Protection Act 1998 coming into force on March 1, 2000.
Although transitional provisions under the Act will mean that, in certain circumstances, full compliance will not be required until October, 2001, any company or organisation holding personal information about individuals should review its existing systems and procedures now to avoid contravening the new provisions.
The current law on data protection provides individuals with various rights and protections about their personal data. Under the new Act, existing provisions will be enhanced.
Generally, personal information about an individual should only be held or processed with that individual's consent, and the purposes for which it is held must be registered with the Data Protection Registrar. Information held must be accurate, up-to-date and not retained for longer than necessary.
Another change which is likely to have a significant impact is that the law will not only cover data held on computers but also in manual or paper form.
There are also new restrictions on transferring information abroad, and on the rights of individuals to access data held on them.
The 1998 Act introduces a new category of information called ''sensitive personal data'' which attracts a higher level of protection.
Such data is defined as inform-ation relating to racial or ethnicnorigins, political opinions, religious or other similar beliefs, trade union membership, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life, commission or alleged commission of an offence, or proceedings or sentencing for any offence.
Many companies retain records of employees' sickness absence. This information would fall within the definition of sensitive personal data as relating to physical or mental health or condition.
If a company or organisation is holding information identified as being ''sensitive personal data,'' they must show that the individual concerned has given explicit consent to that information being held or processed. Alternatively, if they can show they have complied with one of the other conditions for holding this information; for example, the information has been made public by the individual or the holding or processing of the information is necessary to protect the vital interests of the individual who has not given consent, then they do not need to show they have the individual's explicit consent.
Companies should ensure all employees who deal with personal information are aware of the provisions of the Data Protection Act and the restrictions which apply. This could be achieved by offering some form of training.
In addition, organisations should carry out an audit of the information they hold to ensure they are complying with the Act. Any audit should include not only a review of information held but should also ensure consent has been obtained, where necessary, from the individuals concerned.
It would also be advisable for companies to have in place some form of policy to which their employees can refer if they have queries about any issue relating to data protection.
The danger of not addressing this issue of compliance with the law has been clearly highlighted in a recent case where an employee of Grampian Police was prosecuted for allowing improper access to the police computer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolaou
http://communities.msn.co.uk/altJehovahsWitnesses
