A basic need is that when a person overcomes a wrong accusation, clears their name, they can make that fact known. That is an absolutely basic ethic in supporting to a person in a dispute, and in handling of personal data. It is part of the human right to presumption of innocence.
That obviously means – if you clear your name, if you overcome an unjust or malicious accusation, you have a clear human right to that fact’s informing to anyone relevant. To anyone who had accepted the accusation or had acted like they did. That is a basic correction of your personal data. It has nothing to do with whether that other person wants to receive this news. It is a legal notice to the person, asserting that a tarring of your name is overturned and the right position is this.. It follows that you are entitled to have notice sent to them unilaterally.
I have encountered a weird and shocking interpretation of data rules, from an Autism Initiatives worker, that is a major concern requiring campaigning alerts and raising as a concern across the whole autism scene. It should equally concern folks involved in criminal justice. It is an interpretation directly attacking the human right to uphold innocence of an accusation.
This Autism Initiatives worker claimed, insistently and twice, that the info’s recipients have a power of consent over whether to receive the info, and have to be asked permission to give them it!!
Think about that. It means: if some folks fell out with you and turned malicious, unjustly because of an accusation and not accepting your response to it, they would have to consent before anyone could inform them of your cleared name and the acccusation being overcome. Folks who have wronged you already and are using a wrong personal data on you, would be free to refuse consent to receive the news that you have overcome the accusation, and they would be left not correcting their data on you and not told to stop believing you guilty.
This picture is so obviously on the side of injustice and against the equal personal data rights of its victims, that it could cause suicidality. Where are the victim’s data rights, in this picture? I am demanding from Autism Initiatives citations of which law this outrage is claimed to come from. Exactly which law on personal data:
* gives anyone any right of consent to decline to receive a name-clearing correction of data on another person,
* especially, a person who they have fallen out with as a direct result of the wrong data now being corrected,
* does not give the wronged party the automatic entitlement to have their data corrected to any impacted party, unilaterally and regardless of that party’s attitude,
* ever gives the person who the data is about, subordinate right to data consents below other parties who have wronged him based on false data. ?
Will report back if they come up with any: but whatever they come back with goes straight up against the human right to cleared name, and is not allowed to override it.
9 Apr 2019