DPA - fines

Just some news about fines for organisations found breaching the conditions of the Data Protection Act which could be useful.

Commissioner issues first Data Protection Act fines

Digital Economy Bill

This is starting to get more and more controversial.

It's an attempt by the British government to exert more control over the interwebz - specifically, at first glance, things like file sharing. Quite the extent of the controls which might be applied, however, is interesting - and left rather open by the bill before parliament.

I wonder whether this might be worth looking at from the point of view of regulatory organisations for the Jan 10 exam? It might be pushing things, but it's the sort of topical story that would be worth throwing in as a way of showing that you're nice and up to date (if it will fit in the newsletter that is - don't just throw it in for no apparent reason.

Data Overload - need Protection...

Who's got your data on their computer?

Do you know? Probably more people than you might imagine - school, doctors, hospitals, supermarkets, the tax people, the police (perhaps...), anyone you ever registered with online or filled out a paper form for. The list could be, and probably is, endless.

But do you know what they do with your data? Or, rather, what they're allowed to do with your data?

There are rules - the good old Data Protection Act of course.

But does every company or organisation play within the rules?

Seems not.

---

Building Data Regulations:

Consulting Association, a company based in Droitwich (that's near Birmingham, sort of) certainly don't seem to have done so.

They hold data on people who work in the building industry. Big companies - Balfour Beatty for example - would go to them to find out about people they might employ. I suppose that might be quite useful: a company who can tell you what qualifications your future employee might have or what their experience is for example.

But, you see, amongst other things the firm would warn employers about possible "trouble makers".

You know, union organisers.

Following a raid ... investigators discovered that the Consulting Association's database contained the details of some 3,213 workers, the ICO said.

Employers paid £3,000 as an annual fee, and £2.20 for individual details, the ICO said. Invoices to construction firms for up to £7,500 were also seized during the raid.

From Firms in data row deny wrongdoing - BBC News report 6/3/09

Now, I didn't know being in a union or being an organiser was an offence. I thought it was just common sense - I've been a union organiser in my time. It means I might be prepared to stick up for myself in an argument with an employer. I might know about the rules and regulations surrounding things like over time or health and safety.

This is common sense - but it seems that, surprise surprise, the big firms don't like dealing with "union organisers". People who know their rights.

Or, it seems, people who might raise concerns about health and safety matters. You know, on building sites. Like, that isn't important or anything is it? Or about asbestos. The stuff that can kill you if you breath enough of it in: not straight away (like falling from scaffolding that's not been properly put up...) but in years after horrible pain.

You know, you wouldn't want to actually employ someone who'd made a fuss about any of that sort of stuff. Would you?

That stinks. Workers have a right and, to me, a duty to protect themselves. No wonder the Information Commissioner says that the public need to assert their data right.

---

Data Protection to the rescue:
Fortunately this has all come out into the open. And, even more fortunately, it seems that Consulting Association has fallen foul of the good old Data Protection Act this time.

You see, they didn't register with the Information Commissioner. They didn't stick to the rules. The company that noted that one of the people on its database was a problem because he was "Irish ex-Army, bad egg" didn't cover one of the most basic steps that anyone holding data about anyone else needs to do.

Shame.

Nice Face (book)

Ah, now there you go. Facebook get negative press one day and then they come back and seemingly offer "control" to their users.

Actually, it seems like a solid move in the fast evolving world of social networking.

Founder Mark Zuckerberg said the aim was to "open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future".
From Facebook offers control to users on the BBC

Facebook has good market share and has become one of the key "names" in the social networking world. But, what you need to remember with all this, is that names, particularly in the dot.com world, can disappear quicker than a duck into a Ferrari if you're not careful.

Who remembers using Alta Vista as the go to search engine? Hmm, certainly do, but nowadays I never seem to go there. The ubiquitous Google occupies the dominant search engine position and is the name. How about Friends Reunited - once a major name, now who goes there? Or Internet Explorer? (OK, that's wishful thinking, although...)

Anyway, Facebook seems to be giving back some control, perhaps even a town hall type of approach with votes and everything to decide policy. In the increasingly wiki-world that seems like good sense:

"People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service."

I'd say that's a step forward. And a good way for Facebook to retain their growing status and market share as well.

Facebook and what they know...

So, you've signed up to some sort of web social networking thingy? Apparently lots of people have.

Well, what about your content? What about your privacy settings? Can anyone find you, or do you restrict what people can find out about you?

The whole Facebook row which has been in the news is a good example of where this is contentious when changes start to be made.

If you didn't follow the story, basically Facebook decided that they wanted to change their "terms of service" (that's the bit that you didn't read before you ticked the box and hit the I Agree button, OK?) to allow them to claim "ownership" over all the content members put on the site. This BBC story kind of explains it. They then had to back down because lots of people decided they thought this was a Bad Thing - as summarised by the BBC again.

Hmm, please read them carefully? All 6,839 words?! (yes, I counted them...)

All very well - the change of heart is "temporary" and maybe the original plan wasn't actually to claim ownership either, although that's how it hit the headlines which would have put some users off at least.

What is interesting is that all this "new" social networking stuff is basically giving people a free reign over what they put online. The problem with putting content online is that you then lose some element of control over it before you start. Need an example? Ever taken a photo from a website? Or copied some text? Or accessed a friend's profile? (or, more interestingly, an enemy's?!!).

Losing control isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as you control what you lose control of. Do I mind if the details I put on this blog are in the public domain? No, not really - I've limited what I've put in the profile that goes with it deliberately so that it doesn't matter.

But here's a thing - seems lots of people don't change security settings or have any idea what ticking the box and hitting the I Agree button allows someone else to do:

It is likely though that until the row over Facebook's Terms and Conditions went public, few people knew what rights sites claim over the content that their members upload and share.

"Less than 25% of users are making a specific point of going to the privacy settings and making changes," said Simon Davies, head of digital rights group Privacy International.

From: Whose data is it anyway? (BBC, 20/2/09)

Does this matter? Should people care what companies do with their details or who can access them? What information about you is there online that in 10 years time might come back to haunt you?

Or, for that matter, about me...