"Larry Stoter" wrote in message
.uk...
The Data Protection Act is, I consider, a splendid example of poorly
considered legislation, pushed through in response to some pressure
group by politicians who don't have the first idea what they are talking
about in an attempt to garner favour.

It is complex and full of holes, with little thought given to
enforcement and no proper financial provision to enable enforcement.
Another good example is the Dangerous Dogs Act. In both cases, the
number of attempted and successful court cases, makes it clear that
almost nobody has the slightest idea what they mean or could cost.

My personal concern is that the current publicity will lead to a review
and clarification, which I would find a bit of a problem. As part of my
current job, I am often asked to provide information of various sorts,
which I don't really have the time to collect and would often prefer not
to supply. Currently, my standard reply of:

" ... under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, I am unable to
supply this information without the explicit written permission of the
peope concerned. Should you wish me to seek this written permission, I
need a written request from you to so do."

So far, nobody has ever taken up my invitation :-) If it all gets
clarified, I'm going to have to work a lot harder :-((

Actually I was once approaches by a Civil Servant with a request for
information about one of my students who had applied for a somewhat
sensitive defence post. Just for the hell of it, I refused, unless the
enquirer did what you mentioed above. I heard no more about it and the
student got the job. He is now a very senior retired naval officer, and he
does not know of that incident.

Franz