(December 9, 2012 at 2:35 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 2:24 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Asking a data holder for sensitive information IS asking them to break the act.
You don't have to name it.

No, asking a data holder for sensitive information is exactly that, and nothing more. By giving out that information, they would be breaking the act, but the actual act of asking for it is not the same as asking them to break the act itself.

In other words, there is a difference between:

"Please can I have <insert information>?"

and

"Please break the Data Protection Act and give me <insert information>."

No there isn't.

The onus is on the data holder to handle the request correctly but the Djs must have known that they were asking for stuff they weren't entitled to.

Quote:I highly doubt the Australian DJs were even aware of the DPA. You cannot ask someone to break something you know nothing about.

Course you can.

They knew they were being "naughty" I bet that was half the fun.

Quote:Well not now anyway.

The hospital said they weren't disciplining the nurses before the suicide happened.[/quote]

Did they say why not?
She had after all breached an act of parliament with rather stringent punishments for breaching, (not the dead one the other one).

It's an interesting matter, but you're are aware that for certain infractions and classes of said infractions, the enforcement of it depends on the willingness of third parties to press charges or open an investigation?

(December 9, 2012 at 2:58 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: It's an interesting matter, but you're are aware that for certain infractions and classes of said infractions, the enforcement of it depends on the willingness of third parties to press charges or open an investigation?

Yes but, if a breach is discovered internally then there are usually procedures to follow which would involve some sort of disciplinary action, even if its just a verbal warning.

For an incident like this they would have had to raise a patient safety incident report which are taken quite seriously these days.

(December 9, 2012 at 10:12 am)Shell B Wrote: Downbeat, they did not encourage her to break any act. She was a receptionist who connected the pranksters to another nurse. That is all she did.

Actually, she just picked up the phone and handed if off because the proper receptionist was not there. She was just a nurse and I don't blame her for not understanding receptionist protocols.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Annik Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 10:12 am)Shell B Wrote: Downbeat, they did not encourage her to break any act. She was a receptionist who connected the pranksters to another nurse. That is all she did.

Actually, she just picked up the phone and handed if off because the proper receptionist was not there. She was just a nurse and I don't blame her for not understanding receptionist protocols.

That is the ultimate irony/tragedy of this case, no one is blaming the poor woman who killed herself, she did nothing wrong.

That's why i think this incident only had a small role to play. I have no doubts the woman was struggling with other issues.

Maybe, but I have yet to hear anything about other possible causes.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:43 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Maybe, but I have yet to hear anything about other possible causes.

Sadly, unless a note was left, we will never know. Blaming the radio announcers seems like a pointless exercise.

(December 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: No there isn't.

The onus is on the data holder to handle the request correctly but the Djs must have known that they were asking for stuff they weren't entitled to.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether there is a difference.

Suffice to say, knowing they were asking for stuff they weren't entitled to and knowing they were asking the nurse to break the DPA are different things. It's one thing to know you aren't entitled to something, but quite another to know there is an act of parliament protecting that something.

Quote:Course you can.

They knew they were being "naughty" I bet that was half the fun.

Right, but it's not certain they knew they were breaking any specific law.

Quote:Did they say why not?
She had after all breached an act of parliament with rather stringent punishments for breaching, (not the dead one the other one).

I haven't read anything about why they aren't disciplining her. I'd imagine it's partly at the insistence of the palace (not much personal information was actually disclosed, just her condition).

(December 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: That is the ultimate irony/tragedy of this case, no one is blaming the poor woman who killed herself, she did nothing wrong.

I'm afraid technically she did. It would be against hospital policy to put a call through like that without at first verifying the identity of the caller. Indeed, the first nurse, by not running the proper security checks, inadvertently caused the second nurse to break the DPA (I'm assuming the first nurse told the second that it was family on the phone).

All of this because for some reason, that inbred family is considered "royalty".

Human rights Declaration Wrote:-Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

I guess some humans are born "more equal" than others.