Adverts on the tube always catch my eye when I've finished my paper, yesterday being no exception. Whilst crammed in on the Distraught Line I spotted an advert for the Training and Development Agency for Schools which was trying to convince people to go into teaching. Personally I don't have a problem with the advert itself, especially as this one was asking for physics teachers. However, it was the small print of the advert that got me interested.
There were two parts of the advert that had asteriks by them referring to small print. The first was relating to the starting salary of "at least £24K". It seems this is only available in "inner-London", as if outer London (wherever that may actually start) somehow automatically makes everything cheaper? Very odd, and very silly.
The second bit of small print was related to the TDA's use of your information and it simply pointed to the URL for their privacy policy. Odd I thought. Why would a Government agency have a lengthy privacy policy when it's essentially the architect of data protection law? I decided to vist the site this morning and discovered why. Clause 3.4 under "Disclosure and transfer of Information" states:
We may also find it necessary to transfer your personal information to third parties located outside the European Economic Area (EEA). This may happen where companies who process data on behalf of TDA are based outside of the EEA. The data protection and other laws of these countries may not be as comprehensive as those in the UK or the EU - in these instances we take rigorous steps to ensure an adequate level of protection is given to your information.
Translation? "We accept no responsibilty for anyone that sells your data after we've given it to them for free and asked them to promise not to tell anyone". Who exactly are these third parties outside the EEA? I imagine they must refer to someone specific, although I guess it could just be a get-out clause to cover the Government's proverbial. Makes a mockery of the Data Protection Act though when the Government itself won't adhere to its principles doesn't it?
3 comments:
Unfortunately, they are adhering to the principles. The problem is the legislation itself. Data Protection is a nice idea but in practice almost impossible to enact.
(This is about to look boring for a bit but I promise you'll be foaming at the mouth if you read on.)
Data subjects (you and I) must be advised before they give personal information to anyone who will keep or use it (in general terms), about the (types of) other parties to whom that info will be passed, and why. They are complying with this. The 'other parties' might be multinationals whose data processing it outside the UK or EU and therefore outwith the reach of our legislation. Service companies of all sorts including financial services, IT, call centres... 24/7 in all sectors. They are supposed to enter into contracts to make the 'other parties' comply with our standards. Nice if they can, and it works. How sure can we be? Bangalore call centres, anyone?
And here's another thing.
You may be able to decline a job or a service from an organisation which does this, but you are compelled under statute law and CRIMINAL sanction to give your personal information to certain government departments and agencies. The law says they must tell you about it but, in practice, and especially now, once they have your data, it is out of your control completely. The agencies have not been to allowed to pass your data around to each other willy-nilly. UNTIL NOW.
The latest HUGELY IMMORAL THING this government has done (this month) is change the law by prestidigitation. Without a Parliamentary vote, THEY HAVE TOLD GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO 'FEEL FREE' TO PASS YOUR PERSONAL DATA AMONG THEM WITHOUT TELLING YOU.
YOU WILL GO TO JAIL if you do not give ALL you private financial information to Revenue and Customs, who are now (thanks, Lord Falconer - and your former pupil) free to give it to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. And anyone else on Gordon's payroll. Nice, eh?
Perahps I should have said "spirit" rather than "principle"?
ps: http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2006/08/blairs-tanks-advance-towards-my-lawn.html#links
Post a Comment