Public bodies go to is "GDPR" to hide things

[Stigproducts]

I would welcome another opinion on this situation.

I asked local government body A a question which involved a web site belonging to local government body B.

A acknowledged an error with the website and told me they had been working with a person at B on resolving it at my request.

I acknowledged that resolving it was not the job of A and thanked them for their help. I asked A for the name of the person at B so I could follow up if the corrections were not made.

A refused, citing GDPR.

Sounds like a classic go-to BS public sector excuse to me. I have reviewed GDPR and that seems to be exactly the case. I've got GDPR guiding principles using words like "accountability" "transparency".

I'm not asking for B's inside leg measurement, I just want the name of the person doing the tax payer funded work (B) so I can follow up with them, not a 3rd party (A).

[deckster]

Stigproducts said:

I'm not asking for B's inside leg measurement, I just want the name of the person doing the tax payer funded work (B) so I can follow up with them, not a 3rd party (A).

I'm going to suggest that B's right to privacy trumps your desire to hassle them.

[Stigproducts]

I think you are mixing person B up with a member of the public.

I don't think a public employee is entitled to privacy in the course of doing their job and I don't think asking someone to be accountable for their work as a public employee is "hassling" them.

If they are entitled to not be named or questioned by members of the pubic (who pay taxes so they can support their public services) I want to know where it says that in the GDPR rules. My interpretation of them is the opposite of what you have said.

[deckster]

Stigproducts said:

I think you are mixing person B up with a member of the public.

I don't think a public employee is entitled to privacy in the course of doing their job and I don't think asking someone to be accountable for their work as a public employee is "hassling" them.

If they are entitled to not be named or questioned by members of the pubic (who pay taxes so they can support their public services) I want to know where it says that in the GDPR rules. My interpretation of them is the opposite of what you have said.

You paying taxes is entirely irrelevant. This person is entirely entitled to do their job without being accountable to you, or anybody else who isn't in their line management. Please tell me you aren't one of those awful people who scream "I pay your wages you know" at some poor sap who's just trying to fix your problems.

This person is, as you say, doing their job. They are just an employee of the council, nothing more than that. You might have a point if they were an elected official, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

[Stigproducts]

deckster said:

You paying taxes is entirely irrelevant. This person is entirely entitled to do their job without being accountable to you, or anybody else who isn't in their line management. Please tell me you aren't one of those awful people who scream "I pay your wages you know" at some poor sap who's just trying to fix your problems.

This person is, as you say, doing their job. They are just an employee of the council, nothing more than that. You might have a point if they were an elected official, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I disagree. An employee of the council is an employee of the people who the council serve and the people who pay for the council. If they don't like it, other jobs are available.

I don't care about your opinion unless it is in relation to your opinion of my interpretation of the GDPR legislation, which is what I asked for help with.

[deckster]

Stigproducts said:

I don't care about your opinion unless it is in relation to your opinion of my interpretation of the GDPR legislation, which is what I asked for help with.

GDPR specifically prevents his personal information being transferred to you.

Happy?

[Camelot1971]

Stigproducts said:

deckster said:

You paying taxes is entirely irrelevant. This person is entirely entitled to do their job without being accountable to you, or anybody else who isn't in their line management. Please tell me you aren't one of those awful people who scream "I pay your wages you know" at some poor sap who's just trying to fix your problems.

This person is, as you say, doing their job. They are just an employee of the council, nothing more than that. You might have a point if they were an elected official, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I disagree. An employee of the council is an employee of the people who the council serve and the people who pay for the council. If they don't like it, other jobs are available.

I don't care about your opinion unless it is in relation to your opinion of my interpretation of the GDPR legislation, which is what I asked for help with.

People like you are why public servants are protected from having their personal details shared with a moron. Senior managers are generally named because they are paid enough to deal with the BS morons like you provide.

[BertBert]

Wow that got snarky snarky quickly.

OP,b I'm afraid it does have something to do with GDPR. the employer is dealing with personal info (employer details). They will have to have a policy on what they do with that data. That policy will probably say that the data stays private and is used for HR records, payroll etc. Not giving out to seemingly techy members of the public

[Mave]

I think the "accountability" and "transparency" you are referring to is about how the organisation holding the personal data tells the individual why they are holding their data and what it will be used for.

[Rozzers]

Unless this is a fairly senior person, (for whom ’s not reasonable to be anonymous) you have no right to information pursuant to identifying them, whether that’s by name or even employee number. No one else can give that out without their permission unless it’s to protect them or in the greater public interest.

The response is always to protect the person first unless the disclosure is needed for a legitimate public interest that outweighs the right to privacy.

This is standard practice to stop people harassing staff, stalking people and all sorts

If you have a complaint against them, public bodies all have procedures for you to follow and all will also have an independent route on top.

Look into request for personal data about public authority employees and the balance test. You won’t find this in black and white because it’s tied to statute, but what I’ve summarised is how it’s generally dealt with.

[Stigproducts]

My take on GDPR is that it only applies to data processing like computers and stuff, as per

"This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system."

If government employees don't want their name to be associated with a piece of public facing work they are responsible for, they are going to have to find a different reason than GDPR as far as I can see.

This is like asking a dustman his managers name and he citing Data protection act 1984 as a reason not to.

[Amateurish]

Surely you can just "follow up" with organisation B directly? Maybe the person at organisation A can give you the name of the relevant team or department?

[Rozzers]

Stigproducts said:

My take on GDPR is that it only applies to data processing like computers and stuff, as per

"This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system."

If government employees don't want their name to be associated with a piece of public facing work they are responsible for, they are going to have to find a different reason than GDPR as far as I can see.

This is like asking a dustman his managers name and he citing Data protection act 1984 as a reason not to.

I wouldn’t tell you my dogs name the way you’re going on, but anyway, it’s not just electronic data Personal data refers to ANY information relating to an identified or identifiable person.

Personal data includes names.

Also I doubt that bin man would give you a straight answer either.

[Stigproducts]

Amateurish said:

Surely you can just "follow up" with organisation B directly? Maybe the person at organisation A can give you the name of the relevant team or department?

Much as I would like to, they are a bunch of clowns who never answer the phone, don't reply to emails and are even more illusive and belligerent than organisation A.

My failure to succeed with your suggestion is why I contacted organization A in the first place; as a side door to the right person who A probably deal with regularly.

[Amateurish]

Stigproducts said:

Amateurish said:

Surely you can just "follow up" with organisation B directly? Maybe the person at organisation A can give you the name of the relevant team or department?

Much as I would like to, they are a bunch of clowns who never answer the phone, don't reply to emails and are even more illusive and belligerent than organisation A.

My failure to succeed with your suggestion is why I contacted organization A in the first place; as a side door to the right person who A probably deal with regularly.

Formal written complaint? Then if no response, escalate to the ombudsman.

[Mave]

Stigproducts said:

My take on GDPR is that it only applies to data processing like computers and stuff, as per

"This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system."

I don't see how you can say that it only applies to computer data processing, when the section you've quoted refers to processing other than by automated means

Stigproducts said:

If government employees don't want their name to be associated with a piece of public facing work they are responsible for, they are going to have to find a different reason than GDPR as far as I can see.

I don't think your personal view of GDPR will have much influence on an organisation's GDPR policies...

[Mave]

Stigproducts said:

I think you are mixing person B up with a member of the public.

I think you are mixing person B up with someone who isn't a member of the public.

[Oceanrower]

Stigproducts said:

…even more illusive and belligerent than organisation A.

Them belligerent? fk me!

Do you run classes in belligerency?

[Roger Irrelevant]

Stigproducts said:

If they are entitled to not be named or questioned by members of the pubic (who pay taxes so they can support their public services) I want to know where it says that in the GDPR rules. My interpretation of them is the opposite of what you have said.

If you are looking for something that specifically says 'employees of public bodies are entitled to remain anonymous even if a Hard Working Taxpayer (praise be unto them), wants to know their name' then no, there isn't anything that says that. There doesn't need to be because it flows from the fundamental principles of data protection law, which presumably you skipped over in your 'review'.

If somebody (like an employer), holds personal data (like somebody's name - doesn't get more personal than that), about another person, then they can only 'process' the data (which includes passing it to somebody else), for a reason set out in law. Data protection law is actually quite permissive and sensible in what it allows holders of personal data to do, but the overriding presumption is that if personal data doesn't need to be processed, and the data subject hasn't given permission for it to be processed, then it won't be. Dishing out the names of non-public facing rank-and-file employees who just happen to be working on something you've got an interest in is a pretty good example of the sort of thing that DP law is trying to guard against.

As others have said the fact it's a public body makes no difference at all. You may disagree, which is fine, but you'll still be wrong.

[pavarotti1980]

Stigproducts said:

I would welcome another opinion on this situation.

I asked local government body A a question which involved a web site belonging to local government body B.

A acknowledged an error with the website and told me they had been working with a person at B on resolving it at my request.

I acknowledged that resolving it was not the job of A and thanked them for their help. I asked A for the name of the person at B so I could follow up if the corrections were not made.

A refused, citing GDPR.

Sounds like a classic go-to BS public sector excuse to me. I have reviewed GDPR and that seems to be exactly the case. I've got GDPR guiding principles using words like "accountability" "transparency".

I'm not asking for B's inside leg measurement, I just want the name of the person doing the tax payer funded work (B) so I can follow up with them, not a 3rd party (A).

Its quite ironic that you posted in another thread that the police only arrest people as they are ignorant of the nuances of law and yet here we are with you unable to grasp quite straight forward regulations (which aren't even that nuanced).