Talk:Data Protection Directive
|WikiProject European Union||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Security||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Mass surveillance||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Is the title of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data ok? 46 is not a subpage of directive 95, but the forward slashes make it look like it is. I realise subpages are not meant to be used, but what should happen with a title that has a / in it? Would Data protection be a better title? Angela 14:38 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There's nothing inherently wrong with slashes in article titles. In the User: namspace they behave in a special way (you get a backlink to the parent page, as with User:Camembert/Sandbox, for example), but in articles they're treated just like any other character, so it's fine to use them if warranted. Whether that article title is the best possible is another matter, of course, but it seems OK to me (I don't think data protection would be good, since the article is about a specific directive, not about data protection in general). --Camembert
- Omitting the number would be a possibility, if it's mentionned immediately in the article. Law's change, and it's important to know what law is being discussed. --Hdk 16:50 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, if there's no problem with forward slashes in titles, it may be best to leave it as it is. Angela 19:26 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
the 8 basic principles of national application
Collection Limitation Principle
There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject.
Data Quality Principle
Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date.
Purpose Specification Principle
The purposes for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of data collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfilment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose.
Use Limitation Principle
Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with Paragraph 9 except:
a) with the consent of the data subject; or
b) by the authority of law.
Security Safeguards Principle
Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data.
There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available of establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller.
Individual Participation Principle
An individual should have the right:
a) to obtain from a data controller, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him;
b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him within a reasonable time;
at a charge, if any, that is not excessive;
in a reasonable manner; and
in a form that is readily intelligible to him;
c) to be given reasons if a request made under subparagraphs(a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and
d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended.
A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above.
Stumbled accross the same issue: Wikipedia mentions 7 privacy principles citing a journal article from 2001. These principles don't match the OECD principles (see post of Hartestem above). Furthermore, I didn't find any additional literature showing that the 7 principles from the journal article “governed” the creation of the OECD recommendation. Regarding the Data Protection Directive, I don't see, how these principles were “incorporated”; the directive doesn't have explicitly named principles (if I didn't oversee something). Hence I assume, these 7 principles are just the point of view of the article's author, but haven't been the foundation of the OECD recommendation or the Data Protection Directive.
We also need to look at the other statements justified with the cited journal article:
- “The United States, meanwhile, while endorsing the OECD's recommendations, did nothing to implement them within the United States.” seems to be valid and might remain with or without citing the article. But is this relevant in an article about the Data Protection Directive?
- “However, all seven principles were incorporated into the EU Directive.” won't make sense any more if we replace the principles.