[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
|
OK
I think that this thread drifted from my intention when I replied to it initially. I guess where I was really going was a line of reasoning like: a) There is a UK journalist who is raising a complaint against Microsoft under the data protection act. b) Presuming that his complaint is upheld, that means that ICO believe that using MS software allows personal information covered by the data protection act to be "transmitted outside the UK without adequate protection" in contravention of the data protection principles. c) if a and b are correct then: (i) as a registered data controller, do I have a duty of care to prevent personal information I hold and transmit to others being stored on a system running Microsoft software (even when the organisation I transmit the information to is a public body) ii) do I have cause for requesting information on the computer systems my personal data is/will be stored on before complying with requests for my personal information, and would I have cause for lodging a complaint under the data protection act if compelled to provide information that was stored on a system running MS? iii) how many other complaints could be orchestrated nationally through targeted use of public media? iv) Presuming that ICO would/could issue enforcement notices against public bodies, what would an enforcement notice from ICO be likely to say about use of MS software? I think that the thread about whether open source software is more secure because of source code scrutiny is a bit of red herring. The issue is that there is evidence of complicity with NSA with regard to Microsoft, and currently no evidence of complicity with regard to Linux (yet). Phil On 08/12/13 11:16, Philip Hudson wrote:
|
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq