"...disclosure can still take place provided that there is no overriding duty of confidence in the particular circumstances, the purpose that the information will be used for is in the legitimate interests of the individual and will not prejudice them in any way and the organisation subsequently informs them of the unexpected disclosure"

The problem is with "subsequently" and with who decides what's "in the legitimate interests of the individual". It doesn't sound like the "individual" gets to express an opinion on what's in their interest before it's too late to do anything about it (which neatly avoids the inconvenience of their trying to do anything about it to those who gain from handling the information).

The word "legitimate" appears to have been included only to obscure the blunt message that someone else is deciding what's best. What other purpose can that word serve?

If, for example, someone decides to leave home at age 16 and prefers that their family not contact them again, who is fit to decide that it's in that person's interest that they be thwarted? Up to age 16, you have no choice. You destiny is decided also, if you're too old to look after yourself. It sounds like what's best will now be decided for us also for all the years in between.

"Good news for mustachioed Ferrari borrowers"

/coat

"The ICO said that it was a principle of the DPA that people are told when their information is gathered how or when it will be disclosed."

So, why was no action taken against BT when it handed over the private communications data of thousands of individuals to Phorm without consent?

ANOTHER FACTUALLY INCORRECT ARTICLE!!!

c'mon Magnum just borrowed the Ferrari - it belonged to the seldom seen or heard Mr Robin Masters!