Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Suhail Amin Tarafdar ◽  
Michael Fay
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Data ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Access To Data

Data is frequently handled by GPs during their day-to-day work. This includes not only clinical data where patient information is handled, but also organisational data. Clinicians must be aware of the regulations that govern information handling. This article will discuss the Data Protection Act 1998, which governs personal information held on patient records. It will clarify the eight data protection principles and how they apply in practice. Thereafter, the article will discuss the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives the public rights to access certain data held by surgeries. The article will highlight important exemptions and grounds for refusing access to data.

scholarly journals Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Security Information ◽  
University Of Idaho

In Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of Intellectual Property Law, David Levine juxtaposes two starkly different copyright policymaking processes: the closed international process that produced the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the relatively open domestic process that led quite dramatically to the scuttling of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). He reads the two processes against each other as a prelude to recommending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The amendment to FOIA that Professor Levine proposes would open the international IP policymaking process to greater public scrutiny by creating a qualified public right to "foreign relations" national security information, which was systematically withheld from the public during the ACTA negotiations. This article, prepared for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal's 2012 Symposium, "Piracy and the Politics of Policing: Legislating and Enforcing Copyright Law," is a response to Professor Levine that draws on Jürgen Habermas' discourse theory of procedural democracy to examine the policymaking dynamics of ACTA and SOPA/PIPA and to assess the democracy-enhancing potential of the FOIA reform Professor Levine proposes.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

scholarly journals Access to Information Held by Public Authorities

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Record Management ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Definition Of Information ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 considers the administrative structure created by the Freedom of Information Act 2000; the right to information itself; the public authorities that are subject to the right; and the way in which requests for information should be handled. The chapter addresses the form of the request; the definition of ‘information’; the problems that tribunals have had in deciding whether information is held by a public authority; time limits; the transfer of requests from one authority to another; the duty to provide advice and assistance; fees and costs; vexatious and repeated requests; and the notice which has to be given when a request is refused. The chapter then considers the automatic disclosure of information through publication schemes, the need for consultation with third parties, and record management.

Archives and Maltese Legislation on Data Protection and Freedom of Information: Square Pegs in Round Holes?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-232
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Natural Extension ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
National Archives ◽  
The Law ◽  
Access To Documents

This paper studies the Maltese National Archives Act and asks to what extent this law conflicts with the Maltese Data Protection Act and the Maltese Freedom of Information Act. It discusses whether the National Archives Act can be considered to be a natural extension of the Freedom of Information Act and whether there are any inconsistencies between the National Archives Act and the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. It addresses the questions whether the Data Protection Act should be used to deny access at the National Archives to records which disclose private information on a particular person, and which of these three laws has the upper hand at the National Archives of Malta. The aim is to clarify the inter-relationship between the three laws under study and the law related to access to documents held at the National Archives.

Expanding Privacy Rationales under the Federal Freedom of Information Act

2011 ◽  
pp. 42-56
Author(s):  
Charles N. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Information Flow ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post September 11 ◽  
The One

Access to government information in a post-September 11 often involves the resolution of conflicts between privacy rights and the public interest inherent in information flow. On the one hand, information about any individual investigated by the government, or merely landing in an investigative file, might very well invade the privacy of the detainees by unduly stigmatizing them. In fact, such reasoning reflects a line of argumentation central to the federal government’s justification for denial of access: privacy interests, particularly the risk of stigmatization. This chapter reviews the origins and expansion of stigmatization as grounds for protection of information under the FOIA. Examination of several key post-Reporters Committee cases decided by the federal courts illustrates the scope of the problem, as stigmatization has gained a great deal of legal traction in recent years.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-203
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

Data Protection

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Direct Marketing ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Access Data

The first part of Chapter 10 sets out the origins of, and background to, the Data Protection Act 1998 and provides a glossary of idiosyncratic language. It runs through its main provisions: definitions; the rights of individuals to access data relating to themselves, and, if necessary, have it corrected or erased; rights to prevent processing likely to cause damage and distress, or use for direct marketing purposes; data controllers; control of data users; registration and enforcement; the data protection principles; and the powers of the Information Commissioner and the tribunal. The second part of the chapter deals with the interface between the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the effect of section 40(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act.

Information Rights and the Internet

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Common ◽  
Online Traffic

Lord Sumption has said that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was a landmark enactment of great constitutional significance. Chapter 1 identifies the separate regimes for obtaining access to information: the FOI Act; the Environmental Information Regulations; and the Data Protection Act 1998. It explains the differences between them and the part which is also played by the common law. Following Edward Snowden’s revelations about the surveillance undertaken by the US, the chapter outlines the conflict between surveillance, privacy, and information rights. The chapter concludes, first, by looking at the European Court’s decision in the Digital Rights case that Directive 2006/24/EC is invalid. It provided for the mass retention and disclosure to policing and security authorities of individuals’ online traffic data. Second, the chapter looks at the Court’s decision in the Google Spain case that, on the internet, an individual has a right to be forgotten.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document