This guidance is designed to outline the relationship between the public sector equality duty and the Data Protection Act 1998 and explains that authorities should have a clear rationale for the collection and use of personal data and that they should consider how they can minimise risks to privacy. The guidance provides advice for public authorities in England that are legally required
(Edited publisher abstract)
This guidance is designed to outline the relationship between the public sector equality duty and the Data Protection Act 1998 and explains that authorities should have a clear rationale for the collection and use of personal data and that they should consider how they can minimise risks to privacy. The guidance provides advice for public authorities in England that are legally required to publish equality information. It will also be helpful for authorities when they collect and use data about people sharing particular protected characteristics (sometimes called ‘equality monitoring’) in order to build an evidence base to support compliance with the duty.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
equal opportunities, confidentiality, data protection, privacy;
Journal of Adult Protection, 21(6), 2019, pp.276-284.
Publisher:
Emerald
Purpose: In care homes concerns about abuse have established a culture where all information pertaining to a person must be shared, and little attention is paid to privacy in its broader sense. The purpose of this paper is to take a human rights perspective and consider how information governance may impact on the health, well-being and quality of life of residents. It proposes a proactive approach and presents a template for a privacy impact assessment which services could use to improve their approach to privacy, protecting the human rights of those in their care, contributing to their independence and improving outcomes. Design/methodology/approach: A review of historical and current thinking about the value of privacy in human services and wider society leads to a series of challenges to the way in which privacy is upheld in residential care services. Findings: Recent preoccupations with data privacy have led to a myopic neglect of broader considerations of privacy. Whilst it continues to be important to protect the confidentiality of personal data and to ensure that residents are protected from abuse, human services that provide 24 hour care in congregated settings must not neglect broader components of privacy. Research limitations/implications: Privacy impact assessments have been widely used to check whether data privacy is being upheld. The broader concept that might be termed “Big Privacy” is introduced within which data privacy is but one section. It is suggested that big privacy is severely compromised in residential care settings, thus denying residents their human right to privacy. The extent of such violation of rights should be investigated. Practical implications: Having set out the potential reach of the human right to privacy, important work needs to be done to find out how privacy might be upheld in the real world of congregate residential care. Some service providers may have solutions to the organisational challenges, have addressed staff training needs and revised risk assessment strategies so that privacy is upheld alongside other rights. Social implications: Nearly half a million people live in congregate residential care settings in England, and deprivation of privacy is argued to be a significant deprivation of human rights. Occasional tragedies and scandals in congregate settings create pressure for increasing the level of surveillance, and the right to privacy is sacrificed. This paper offers a challenge to this process, arguing that competing rights need to be balanced and privacy is an essential component of a decent quality of life. Originality/value: Personal growth and development depends to some extent on choice and control over access to privacy. Recent changes in the law regarding data protection have narrowed thinking about privacy until it is a small concept, largely concerned with data handling. This paper invites consideration of big privacy, and invites congregate residential care settings to consider how a deep and broad definition of privacy could transform these services.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Purpose: In care homes concerns about abuse have established a culture where all information pertaining to a person must be shared, and little attention is paid to privacy in its broader sense. The purpose of this paper is to take a human rights perspective and consider how information governance may impact on the health, well-being and quality of life of residents. It proposes a proactive approach and presents a template for a privacy impact assessment which services could use to improve their approach to privacy, protecting the human rights of those in their care, contributing to their independence and improving outcomes. Design/methodology/approach: A review of historical and current thinking about the value of privacy in human services and wider society leads to a series of challenges to the way in which privacy is upheld in residential care services. Findings: Recent preoccupations with data privacy have led to a myopic neglect of broader considerations of privacy. Whilst it continues to be important to protect the confidentiality of personal data and to ensure that residents are protected from abuse, human services that provide 24 hour care in congregated settings must not neglect broader components of privacy. Research limitations/implications: Privacy impact assessments have been widely used to check whether data privacy is being upheld. The broader concept that might be termed “Big Privacy” is introduced within which data privacy is but one section. It is suggested that big privacy is severely compromised in residential care settings, thus denying residents their human right to privacy. The extent of such violation of rights should be investigated. Practical implications: Having set out the potential reach of the human right to privacy, important work needs to be done to find out how privacy might be upheld in the real world of congregate residential care. Some service providers may have solutions to the organisational challenges, have addressed staff training needs and revised risk assessment strategies so that privacy is upheld alongside other rights. Social implications: Nearly half a million people live in congregate residential care settings in England, and deprivation of privacy is argued to be a significant deprivation of human rights. Occasional tragedies and scandals in congregate settings create pressure for increasing the level of surveillance, and the right to privacy is sacrificed. This paper offers a challenge to this process, arguing that competing rights need to be balanced and privacy is an essential component of a decent quality of life. Originality/value: Personal growth and development depends to some extent on choice and control over access to privacy. Recent changes in the law regarding data protection have narrowed thinking about privacy until it is a small concept, largely concerned with data handling. This paper invites consideration of big privacy, and invites congregate residential care settings to consider how a deep and broad definition of privacy could transform these services.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
privacy, literature reviews, data protection, care providers, confidentiality, residential care, human rights;
This article enquires whether risks to privacy are greater in some policy sectors than others. First it shows how the Labour Government's policy agenda is producing stronger imperatives towards data sharing than was the case under previous administrations in three fields of public policy and services, and then examines the safeguards introduced in these fields. The authors then compare the settlements emerging from differing practices within each of these policy sectors, before briefly assessing which, if any, principles of data protection seem to be most at risk and in which policy contexts. Four strategies for the governance of data sharing and privacy are recapitulated namely, seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; mitigating the tensions with safeguards such as detailed guidelines; allowing privacy to take precedence over integration; and allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy. Argue that the UK government has increasingly sought to pursue the second strategy and that the vertical dimension is, in practice, much more important in defining the settlement between data sharing and privacy than is the horizontal dimension. This strategy is, however, potentially unstable and may not be sustainable. The conclusion proposes a radical recasting of the way in which the idea of a 'balance' between privacy and data-sharing imperatives is conceived.
This article enquires whether risks to privacy are greater in some policy sectors than others. First it shows how the Labour Government's policy agenda is producing stronger imperatives towards data sharing than was the case under previous administrations in three fields of public policy and services, and then examines the safeguards introduced in these fields. The authors then compare the settlements emerging from differing practices within each of these policy sectors, before briefly assessing which, if any, principles of data protection seem to be most at risk and in which policy contexts. Four strategies for the governance of data sharing and privacy are recapitulated namely, seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; mitigating the tensions with safeguards such as detailed guidelines; allowing privacy to take precedence over integration; and allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy. Argue that the UK government has increasingly sought to pursue the second strategy and that the vertical dimension is, in practice, much more important in defining the settlement between data sharing and privacy than is the horizontal dimension. This strategy is, however, potentially unstable and may not be sustainable. The conclusion proposes a radical recasting of the way in which the idea of a 'balance' between privacy and data-sharing imperatives is conceived.
Subject terms:
NHS, privacy, social policy, access to information, case studies, central government, data protection;
Public Administration, 83(1), March 2005, pp.111-133.
Publisher:
Wiley
In 2002, the government published a major policy paper on data sharing and privacy. By late 2003, its approach to the need for legislation had changed sharply. This article discusses analyses the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Part II (published in the next issue) examines the vertical dimension in three fields in which tensions between data sharing and privacy have come to the fore: community safety, social security and NHS health care. Four options for the governance of data sharing and privacy are analytically distinguished: (1) seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; (2) mitigating the tensions with detailed guidelines for implementation; (3) allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy; and (4) allowing privacy to take precedence over data sharing. The article argues that, despite its strong assertion of (1), the government has, in practice, increasingly sought to pursue option (2) and that, in consequence, the vertical dimension has become much more important in shaping the relationship than the horizontal dimension. The article argues, however, that option (2) is a potentially unstable
In 2002, the government published a major policy paper on data sharing and privacy. By late 2003, its approach to the need for legislation had changed sharply. This article discusses analyses the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Part II (published in the next issue) examines the vertical dimension in three fields in which tensions between data sharing and privacy have come to the fore: community safety, social security and NHS health care. Four options for the governance of data sharing and privacy are analytically distinguished: (1) seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; (2) mitigating the tensions with detailed guidelines for implementation; (3) allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy; and (4) allowing privacy to take precedence over data sharing. The article argues that, despite its strong assertion of (1), the government has, in practice, increasingly sought to pursue option (2) and that, in consequence, the vertical dimension has become much more important in shaping the relationship than the horizontal dimension. The article argues, however, that option (2) is a potentially unstable strategy as well as being unsustainable.
Subject terms:
joint working, joint planning, privacy, public sector, rights, data protection;
INVOLVE, Understanding Patient Data, Carnegie UK Trust
Publication year:
2018
Pagination:
56
Place of publication:
London
This report provides a framework to support to government and public service providers to assess and evaluate the public benefits data sharing and balance this against the potential risks. It is based on the findings from six workshops in different local authority areas in England which brought together over 120 professionals from the public and voluntary sectors (including those working in housing, criminal justice, health, social care and welfare) to explore how they understand, define and value the public benefits which could be derived from the use of personal data. The workshops identified three clear tests for the public sector to gain the social licence to share and use data more widely. These were that data sharing should be: purposeful, proportionate and responsible. Further analysis of the discussion led the development of an evaluation framework to help public service providers assess the potential of data use and sharing to deliver public benefit, grouped around five key features: that it enables high quality service delivery which produces better outcomes for people; that it delivers positive outcomes for the wider public, not just individuals; that it uses data in ways that respect the individual; that it represents, and supports, the effective use of public resources to enables the delivery of what people need/want from public services; that the benefits are tangible, recognised and valued by service providers and the wider public.
(Edited publisher abstract)
This report provides a framework to support to government and public service providers to assess and evaluate the public benefits data sharing and balance this against the potential risks. It is based on the findings from six workshops in different local authority areas in England which brought together over 120 professionals from the public and voluntary sectors (including those working in housing, criminal justice, health, social care and welfare) to explore how they understand, define and value the public benefits which could be derived from the use of personal data. The workshops identified three clear tests for the public sector to gain the social licence to share and use data more widely. These were that data sharing should be: purposeful, proportionate and responsible. Further analysis of the discussion led the development of an evaluation framework to help public service providers assess the potential of data use and sharing to deliver public benefit, grouped around five key features: that it enables high quality service delivery which produces better outcomes for people; that it delivers positive outcomes for the wider public, not just individuals; that it uses data in ways that respect the individual; that it represents, and supports, the effective use of public resources to enables the delivery of what people need/want from public services; that the benefits are tangible, recognised and valued by service providers and the wider public.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
public sector, information sharing, privacy, data protection, information management, data collection, risk, voluntary sector, outcomes, local authorities;
This report examines the hurdles to effective data sharing between public bodies and considers whether a law reform would solve or mitigate the problem. Public bodies report that they cannot always share the data they need to share and, as a result, miss out on opportunities to provide better services to citizens. At the same time, the protection of privacy is fundamental to any data sharing
(Edited publisher abstract)
This report examines the hurdles to effective data sharing between public bodies and considers whether a law reform would solve or mitigate the problem. Public bodies report that they cannot always share the data they need to share and, as a result, miss out on opportunities to provide better services to citizens. At the same time, the protection of privacy is fundamental to any data sharing regime. The report draws on the responses to a consultation paper, from a range of different organisations and individuals, including social care professionals. It outlines the legal and statutory context, highlighting key problems under the current law and looks at data sharing in practice, presenting three case studies relating to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Troubled Families Programme. The report makes three key recommendations: a full law reform project should be carried out in order to create a principled and clear legal structure for data sharing, which will meet the needs of society; the scope of the review should extend beyond data sharing between public bodies to the disclosure of information between public bodies and other organisations carrying out public functions; the project should be conducted on a tripartite basis by the Law Commission of England and Wales, together with the Scottish Law Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Commission.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
data protection, data collection, interagency cooperation, privacy, access to information, record keeping, confidentiality, public sector;
British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 2013, pp.759-774.
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
Children who spend time in public care, such as children's homes and/or foster care will have a child-care or case file to record and collate data concerning their care. This article outlines and analyses the differing policy and practice regimes for former children in care who wish to accessing their case records in the UK and Australia, two countries that have seen significant developments in this area of work in recent decades. It also identifies future research needs, policy priorities and practice improvements in both countries.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Children who spend time in public care, such as children's homes and/or foster care will have a child-care or case file to record and collate data concerning their care. This article outlines and analyses the differing policy and practice regimes for former children in care who wish to accessing their case records in the UK and Australia, two countries that have seen significant developments in this area of work in recent decades. It also identifies future research needs, policy priorities and practice improvements in both countries.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
privacy, access to information, comparative studies, social policy, case records, residential child care, foster care, data protection, law, looked after children;
This report focuses on the way in which the data of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is handled, and whether information-sharing practices conform to data protection and human rights requirements. Questionnaires were sent to 134 local authorities, and responses received from 120. The research revealed a high level of concern amongst local authority staff and refugee organisations about the way in which children’s sensitive data may be shared, both between agencies and with central government. The first section of the report considers current practice and the law regarding the procedures for the collection, storage and use of the sensitive data collected from unaccompanied children. It particularly looks at the controversy surrounding the process of assessing a child’s age, and whether these procedures comply with human rights and data protection requirements. The second section of the report examines the systems and processes used to support information storage and sharing, in particular examining the National Register of Unaccompanied Children (NRUC).
This report focuses on the way in which the data of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is handled, and whether information-sharing practices conform to data protection and human rights requirements. Questionnaires were sent to 134 local authorities, and responses received from 120. The research revealed a high level of concern amongst local authority staff and refugee organisations about the way in which children’s sensitive data may be shared, both between agencies and with central government. The first section of the report considers current practice and the law regarding the procedures for the collection, storage and use of the sensitive data collected from unaccompanied children. It particularly looks at the controversy surrounding the process of assessing a child’s age, and whether these procedures comply with human rights and data protection requirements. The second section of the report examines the systems and processes used to support information storage and sharing, in particular examining the National Register of Unaccompanied Children (NRUC).
Subject terms:
human rights, law, privacy, unaccompanied asylum seeking children, access to information, asylum seekers, childrens rights, confidentiality, data protection;
Includes guidance and commentary on the Act and related legislation and codes, including the the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Lawful Business Practice Regulations 2000, and the forthcoming code of practice on the use of personal data in employer/employee relationships
Includes guidance and commentary on the Act and related legislation and codes, including the the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Lawful Business Practice Regulations 2000, and the forthcoming code of practice on the use of personal data in employer/employee relationships
Subject terms:
information technology, human rights, interpersonal relationships, law, privacy, confidentiality, data protection, employment;