Proportionality and necessity. Proportionality and necessity are factors to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to share personal information. In making the decision, employees must weigh up what might happen as a result of the information being shared against what might happen if it is not, and apply their professional judgement. Although sharing of information can impact on a practitioner’s relationship with an individual/family, keeping the child safe must always be the first consideration. Safeguarding is a “special purpose” under the Data Protection Act and as such you should share if the sharing is necessary for the protection of an individual, under or over 18, who is at risk from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. You are expected to justify that you believed sharing was necessary for one of the following criteria: • necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime • required or authorised by an enactment, by a rule of law or by the order of a court or tribunal • in the particular circumstances, was justified as being in the public interest. Or that you acted in the reasonable belief that: • the person had a legal right to do the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining • the person would have had the consent of the controller if the controller had known about the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining and the circumstances of it, or
Proportionality and necessity. Proportionality and necessity are factors to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to share personal information. In making the decision, employees must weigh up what might happen as a result of the information being shared against what might happen if it is not and apply their professional judgement. The relevant legal duties and powers of the agencies need to be considered. Factors will include those relevant to individual data subjects but also to society more generally. Data Controllers are expected to justify that they believed sharing was necessary for one of the following criteria: ● necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime ● required or authorised by an enactment, by a rule of law or by the order of a court or tribunal ● in the particular circumstances, was justified as being in the public interest. Or that they acted in the reasonable belief that: ● the person had a legal right to do the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining ● the person would have had the consent of the controller if the controller had known about the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining and the circumstances of it Measures to assist proportionality include: ● All panel attendees have to sign a confidentiality agreement ● Panel attendees only attend with the panel chair’s permission. ● Cases are time managed throughout the Channel panel meeting. Referring agencies (e.g. schools) only attend for their specific case to answer panel questions and receive actions and then leave the meeting. ● Channel panel meeting minutes and notes can be pseudonymised although it should be noted that pseudonymised records may still contain Personal Data or data that is re-identifiable when combined with other data sources. ● Limited electronic and hard copy are circulated to members to minimise the risk of data breaches. ● Channel notes and minutes are held securely on the relevant Council system with Role Based Access Control.
Proportionality and necessity. Proportionality and necessity are factors to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to share personal information. In making the decision, employees must weigh up what might happen as a result of the information being shared against what might happen if it is not, and apply their professional judgement. Organisations party to this Agreement are expected to justify that they believed sharing was necessary for one of the following criteria: ● necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime ● required or authorised by an enactment, by a rule of law or by the order of a court or tribunal ● in the particular circumstances, was justified as being in the public interest. Or that the organisation acted in the reasonable belief that: ● the person had a legal right to do the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining ● the person would have had the consent of the controller if the controller had known about the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining and the circumstances of it What is considered ‘reasonable’ will change depending on the circumstances. For a rapid response to emergencies, or getting immediate physical, mental and emotional support to those affected, organisations will have to make quick judgements. It is recommended that all parties consider likely sharing needs and establish protocols as part of their emergency preparedness, so that employees and practitioners are confident in making lawful decisions quickly.
Proportionality and necessity. Proportionality and necessity are factors to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to share personal information. In making the decision, employees must weigh up what might happen as a result of the information being shared against what might happen if it is not, and apply their professional judgement.
Proportionality and necessity. The types of user behaviours, platform abuse, safety issues and harmful content online will vary greatly in incidence, risk-level and impact amongst the diverse range of products and services offered by digital platforms. Digital platforms should be incentivised to take action and respond in a way that is both risk-based and proportionate and necessary to the level of harm. Furthermore, the severity and prevalence of harmful content online, its status in law, and other efforts already underway (such as global standard-setting bodies and frameworks) should be taken into account.
