Quote:
Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking
Thanks everyone for your valuable comments.
As before, I can't respond to each and every point made (that's shorthand for saying that I'm overwhelmed with work and don't have enough minutes in the day to do everything I'd like to).
I will however respond to one specific point about the video of the public meeting. We did arrange to have the meeting filmed. That was entirely within our brief. We did not accept liability or responsibility for its broadcast, which would have been a role outside our brief. I apologise if I raised expectations that the footage would be imminently published, but I did genuinely believe it was to be immediately published.
The fact that almost every member of the press had recorded the event in full and that other participants were filming it made me a little more comfortable about the issue of transparency.
Simon
|
Thanks Simon.
As I've pointed out recently it has been unfortunate that you were not a little clearer on the matter beforehand but it is done and you have responded to the questions in that area. I doubt it does any of us any good to further question this area.
Given that it has been me that has brought up questions regarding how the PIA has been worked and how close to the ICO framework it has been ( trust me, I'm aware it is not a legal document or undertaking and in fact the ICO only offer guidelines for the creation of such documents, I'm not confused there ) do you think it would be possible to engage in a q&a regarding the screening. full scale assessment and compliance issues. either in private or open in a place such as here.
I have no wish o trip you up or rip apart anything regarding the PIA. I am genuinely interested in the process. I will of course, use any answers to assess the validity of the PIA in my opinion should Phorm try and spin it's content in the future. Given I've said that do you think it may be possible for discussion ( because if not I shall waste no more of our time on it )
Regards
Craig