GrumbleDook burbled:


>There are a few companies
>that I have terrible problems with when it comes to sharing my
>information with anyone and everyone 

We got there eventually.

>If people do think this is over the top then Becta have a
>collaborative area for discussion about, as well as reading
>discussions in various other places (including here).

Thinking something is OTT does not mean you have to discuss.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind.

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

Message-ID:
 from
GrumbleDook contained the following:

> Anyway,
>I thought that thinking something was OTT would be a good place to
>start a discussion ... why do you think it is OTT? What you suggest is
>done to make things more relevant to real life and how people work?
>The 150 or so pages will take some time to go through but do people
>think that anyone in their school *will* actually read it? Are you
>just going to wait for advice from the LA?

Sounds like a good plan to me if that's how it will work.  You'd have to
be pretty brave to wing it. But I would have thought there would have to
be universal guidelines.

I think it's a bad idea for individual organisations to make up their
own rules on handling data.  There are no limits when it comes to
security.  Do you want all data kept on a single, non networked machine,
physically isolated and accessible by a select few users?  Anything more
practical will introduce more risk and so some risk has to be
acceptable. 
-- 
black-dog
"Always spellcheck your wok to avoid mistakes"
http://www.slipperyhill.co.uk - Blue grass, blues, barn dance
http://4theweb.co.uk - Web design, development and hosting

"GrumbleDook" 
> Simple ... if *you* don't think it is worthy of discussion you *don't
> have to take part!* It's not as if this is the horrible circular
> arguements from a few years ago (windows v linux v RiscOS v OSX), 

Ahh, those were the days!

-- 
Ellie

GrumbleDook burbled:

>On 24 Sep, 00:01, Sheel  wrote:
>> GrumbleDook burbled:
>>
>> >There are a few companies
>> >that I have terrible problems with when it comes to sharing my
>> >information with anyone and everyone
>>
>> We got there eventually.
>
>What? That I have a problem with companes sharing my information even
>though they have been told not to? Or the fact that too many people
>can't be bothered to follow the DPA as they don't think it is that
>impoertant? I believe the later ... and the former is one of many
>indicators that this is all too common. Another indicator goes back to
>the OP which highlights the trouble we have with how data is viewed in
>schools.
>>
>> >If people do think this is over the top then Becta have a
>> >collaborative area for discussion about, as well as reading
>> >discussions in various other places (including here).
>>
>> Thinking something is OTT does not mean you have to discuss.
>
>Ooohh ... a meta discussion about what is on topic / off topic /
>worthy of discussion.
>
>Simple ... if *you* don't think it is worthy of discussion you *don't
>have to take part!* It's not as if this is the horrible circular
>arguements from a few years ago (windows v linux v RiscOS v OSX), but
>trying to bring forward some discussion about something coming out of
>Government that is going to affect all areas of public sector. Anyway,
>I thought that thinking something was OTT would be a good place to
>start a discussion ... why do you think it is OTT? What you suggest is
>done to make things more relevant to real life and how people work?
>The 150 or so pages will take some time to go through but do people
>think that anyone in their school *will* actually read it? Are you
>just going to wait for advice from the LA?

And relax...
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

My train of thought will be arriving 15 minutes late.