Yes, I have already read the whole of this thread.
1) I cannot stress enough that I don't care whether Michael Heseltine's (by the way, he is a Lord nowadays, not a Mr!) privacy has been invaded, but the only easy way to get a big enough sample of verified living people to check was to choose famous people. Dates of birth for ordinary people are not so easy to get, though I realise that you can get someone's birth certificate - but you have to pay for that.
Thankfully here in England and Wales we live in a free society, which has no law of privacy, despite what many presume.
2) The first thing I did when I realised that records had been wrongly opened was to contact FindMyPast and advise them that they should immediately roll back the update until they had figured out what went wrong. After some discussion with them and getting nowhere, I contacted TNA and it was only when I finally realised that neither organisation was ever going to admit that there was a problem that I contacted the ICO (which, by the way, TNA advised me to do.) I would have hoped that the 1939 Register would set the standard for future databases which contain closed records of living people which can be automatically opened after their deaths, but since there is such an obvious error in processing of the 1939 Register, it needs to be sorted out now before it can be used as a basis for any future projects.
Have you actually looked to see what the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) regards as sensitive personal data?
Data Protection Act 1998, Part 1, Section 2
2 Sensitive personal data.
In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to—
(a)the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b)his political opinions,
(c)his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d)whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the M1Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e)his physical or mental health or condition,
(f)his sexual life,
(g)the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h)any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.
The 1939 National Registration as released does not contain any of that data therefore it is safe to say there are no concerns in that respect.
It is not true that a record has to be unlocked before you get any meaningful information, as data such as date of birth can indeed be obtained without even logging into FindMyPast. I would not like to go into details of how I think people might use a database made up of data copied from the 1939 Register.
Have you also considered that for instance names have to be made available by law under various enactments i.e. the Marriage Act, 1949, Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, etc. and are therefore exempt from the DPA under Part IV section 34-
34 Information available to the public by or under enactment.
Personal data are exempt from—
(a)the subject information provisions,
(b)the fourth data protection principle and section 14(1) to (3), and
(c)the non-disclosure provisions,
if the data consist of information which the data controller is obliged by or under any enactment [F1other than an enactment contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000] to make available to the public, whether by publishing it, by making it available for inspection, or otherwise and whether gratuitously or on payment of a fee.
Have you also considered that the NHS is required under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI) to release the 1939 National Registration records.
They first did this using FoI requests by this was costly and time consuming for the NHS and they changed that system for the current publication scheme as noted as a duty under the FoI
Have you also looked at the Information Commissioner’s (IC) ruling about redaction of information?
Reference: FS50248664, Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
Decision Notice Date: 9 November 2009.
In his ruling the IC acknowledged
1, “the NHSIC has not been able to provide any information about any promise of confidentiality given when the information was obtained”
2, The IC “notes that the withheld information would fall under the definition of ‘personal census information’ as set out in the Census Act 1920 (the “Census Act”). Section 8(2)” however he also makes clear that the 1939 National Registration “that the 1939 Register does not fall under this legislation”.
That means such legislation does not have effect on the 1939 national Registration.
I would also note that the IC in the ruling on the 1911 census required the GRO to evaluate the information in the disabilities column of the census and make a decision on each individual case whether to released that information or redact it.
This shows that just because certain information is personal to the individual it does not necessarily imply that it is sensitive information that should be redacted.
Cheers
Guy
