Tweet
Re: George Washington UE Diary
think that although this is annoying and probably some of it is delay tatics by the bank there could be some grain of truth behind what is going on.
The DPA has been a boon for the little man when challenging the big boys so from that point of view its all good.
However companies are starting to wake up to the fact the ICO does have teeth. (not with us when we want a DCA
for making a mess of stuff).
One part of the DPA is that a company cannot send personal information out on a new request without firstly ensuring the data is going to the right person. If they fail this and data ends up in wrong hands the ICO is starting to hit them with big fines.
Sending out personal data on a new request now for us is a big no no and has been moved into a gross misconduct type of disiplinary offence. We have to follow set guidelines and it goes to quite a senior level before we release. For the last 3 years we have had mandatory training and 2 exams per year.
What SXguy is reporting Natpest is saying coincides with what we are told at work. Old data requests can continue but with new ones we have to do background checks that the person is legally allowed to have the data. Even if its the same person. This has to be recorded we have done these checks just incase something does go wrong and ICO wants to check what we did.
If the check doesnt prove beyond reasonable doubt the person is who they say they are then no data is released.
I dont know what the answer is here because for us at work we are not known for lifting a signature onto a document to make a debt enforceable. In the requests for a CCA it is known and documented and the reason why the digital signature is recommended.
Sometimes it only has to be something as silly as someone getting wrong info complaining to the ICO which will make the company react and go into supersafe mode.
I think Elsa's method or FP's anti tamper strip have merits when a company has gone into lockdown.
think that although this is annoying and probably some of it is delay tatics by the bank there could be some grain of truth behind what is going on.
The DPA has been a boon for the little man when challenging the big boys so from that point of view its all good.
However companies are starting to wake up to the fact the ICO does have teeth. (not with us when we want a DCA
for making a mess of stuff).One part of the DPA is that a company cannot send personal information out on a new request without firstly ensuring the data is going to the right person. If they fail this and data ends up in wrong hands the ICO is starting to hit them with big fines.
Sending out personal data on a new request now for us is a big no no and has been moved into a gross misconduct type of disiplinary offence. We have to follow set guidelines and it goes to quite a senior level before we release. For the last 3 years we have had mandatory training and 2 exams per year.
What SXguy is reporting Natpest is saying coincides with what we are told at work. Old data requests can continue but with new ones we have to do background checks that the person is legally allowed to have the data. Even if its the same person. This has to be recorded we have done these checks just incase something does go wrong and ICO wants to check what we did.
If the check doesnt prove beyond reasonable doubt the person is who they say they are then no data is released.
I dont know what the answer is here because for us at work we are not known for lifting a signature onto a document to make a debt enforceable. In the requests for a CCA it is known and documented and the reason why the digital signature is recommended.
Sometimes it only has to be something as silly as someone getting wrong info complaining to the ICO which will make the company react and go into supersafe mode.
I think Elsa's method or FP's anti tamper strip have merits when a company has gone into lockdown.
Comment