ONLY JACOB CAN TALK
Mother told son, 7, had to deal with complaint about play suit
Last week it was revealed that Marks & Spencer had insisted that a seven-year-old boy should talk to them about a defective Superman costume he had received for his birthday because “data protection” rules stopped them from discussing it with his mother Debbie. She had rung up to complain that the belt on the outfit was missing. Jacob Hunter-Lamb’s name had been used for the delivery because his mother wanted the suit to be a birthday surprise. Despite Jacob’s bemusement, a member of staff at the M&S customer services department insisted that they could talk to Debbie directly only after Jacob had given permission for his mother to deal with the matter. With some difficulty, he also had to confirm the family address, including postcode, in Lincoln.

DATA CONTROL
Act intended to safeguard details stored by companies
The matter was resolved happily, with an apology to the Lambs for M&S’s overzealousness and a free Incredible Hulk outfit for Jacob, but the story will resonate with many who have fallen foul of the Data Protection Act. Brought in 10 years ago, it was intended to safeguard information on individuals held by bodies or companies either on computer or in paper filing systems. The act is long and complicated but its basic tenets are that all stored data must be used only for an express purpose, kept up to date and accurate, and, importantly, held securely. It also provides for anyone to be able to access their own data, of which many people are unaware. Any inaccuracies can be challenged and corrected through the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

BIZARRE RULINGS
Officials have retreated behind act in baffling ways
Stories are legion of the act being cited apparently for no better reason than to impede people as they go about their everyday lives. There was, for instance, the case of the Roman Catholic priests who were apparently told to stop naming sick parishioners in their prayers for fear of breaching the act. Or the 11-year-old girl who was told she could not see the result of her flute exam because only the person who made the application, in this case her teacher, could be informed. In both those cases the ICO said the act had been misinterpreted. In the first case this was because the parishioners’ illnesses were unlikely to be kept on record and in the second because keeping exam results from students is, well, just plain silly.

BLUNDERING GUARDIANS
Enforcers seem adept at losing our information
The primary problem with the act is that most of those charged with upholding it don’t really understand its provisions. David Smith, the ICO deputy commissioner, said last week: “The Data Protection Act does not impose a blanket ban on the release of personal information. What it does do is require a commonsense approach. It should not be used as an excuse by those reluctant to take a balanced decision.” It should be noted, too, that many of the same kind of officials who are adept at refusing access to information are very poor at keeping it safe: in July the ICO issued enforcement notices to the Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs over lost laptops and compact discs that contained the personal details of millions of people.

Times Recommends

• 'Kelvin MacKenzie ate my paper'
• Cold, dark journeys of the lone wolf
• It’s too easy to blame dads