Hockey Sticks and Balls of Steel :)
The key to creating a excellent letter that achieves your objective is to start from first principles. This is simply a brief guide on how I construct letters and arguments. The concept of " distress" as applied to Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 is often debated by the Data Controller under siege. There are a few important steps
1. Everyone should always make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 to see what data iwantgreatcare holds.
2. It is important to work from first principles. The definition of distress is a good start.
3. This is the definition The word distress has various meanings:-
* Distress is a kind of suffering or stress.
* In medicine, distress is stress caused by adverse events.
Any definition from a dictionary - medical or otherwise should do.
4. We then move onto defining stress.
5. We then observe the Data Protection Act 1998 again
10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress
(1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and
(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.
The Data Controller will normally argue that distress cannot be shown or proven. If everyone observes the above, the important words are "LIKELY TO CAUSE". This is a different emphasis to HAS CAUSED.
6. Stress and Distress are normally quantified by Expert Reports in tort law. So, if a psychiatrist or the Royal College of Psychiatrist were to write a letter stating that the processing of doctors' data is " LIKELY TO CAUSE DISTRESS". The same expert opinion could be obtained from a GP. So doctors concerned about iwantgreatcare should think in terms of making a robust case for themselves. I am sure many psychiatrists will be willing to provide an Expert Opinion on this issue to back this case. This then holds greater weight if appealed to the Information Commissioner and onto Tribunal. A word of warning, the IC takes a long time to assess complaints. I would argue the above through a pre-action but thats just me. Others may find it more helpful to defeat Bacon by the power of argument.
7. The secondary arguments are that distress flows from the potential of defamation leading to the loss of job, status and reputation and a potential of a GMC Referral. Further, in cases where the doctors workplace address is published, there is a risk of physical abuse, assault etc from individuals who would not otherwise have access to this information. Again, leading to the possibility of distress and potential damage.
The above arguments flow from one logical step to another. I hope this is helpful. The marketting arguments will be up in the next few days.
1. Everyone should always make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 to see what data iwantgreatcare holds.
2. It is important to work from first principles. The definition of distress is a good start.
3. This is the definition The word distress has various meanings:-
* Distress is a kind of suffering or stress.
* In medicine, distress is stress caused by adverse events.
Any definition from a dictionary - medical or otherwise should do.
4. We then move onto defining stress.
5. We then observe the Data Protection Act 1998 again
10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress
(1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and
(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.
The Data Controller will normally argue that distress cannot be shown or proven. If everyone observes the above, the important words are "LIKELY TO CAUSE". This is a different emphasis to HAS CAUSED.
6. Stress and Distress are normally quantified by Expert Reports in tort law. So, if a psychiatrist or the Royal College of Psychiatrist were to write a letter stating that the processing of doctors' data is " LIKELY TO CAUSE DISTRESS". The same expert opinion could be obtained from a GP. So doctors concerned about iwantgreatcare should think in terms of making a robust case for themselves. I am sure many psychiatrists will be willing to provide an Expert Opinion on this issue to back this case. This then holds greater weight if appealed to the Information Commissioner and onto Tribunal. A word of warning, the IC takes a long time to assess complaints. I would argue the above through a pre-action but thats just me. Others may find it more helpful to defeat Bacon by the power of argument.
7. The secondary arguments are that distress flows from the potential of defamation leading to the loss of job, status and reputation and a potential of a GMC Referral. Further, in cases where the doctors workplace address is published, there is a risk of physical abuse, assault etc from individuals who would not otherwise have access to this information. Again, leading to the possibility of distress and potential damage.
The above arguments flow from one logical step to another. I hope this is helpful. The marketting arguments will be up in the next few days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment