Recorded Sensitive Data - a Legal Question

[leeds1]

I have to write it like this to keep it brief but here is my question

 

a person refuses to go through data with a company who is harassing them with phonecalls

the calls continue so the person starts to record them

repeated DSAR requests of the companys recordings of the calls are refused as the company say they may be considered sensitive data

some time later, the issue of harassment gos to court

transcripts are provided to the court and the company

the company refuses to accept that they have harassed the person

the person wins the court case

the company appeals the courts decision

the company then say they want the phone to take a copy of the recordings and will even pay for it to be done

the person considers the recordings to be their own personal data

but is prepared to let the company have a group of the recordings that would be considered malicious calls and criminal behaviour and which the company have denied making

 

this is a way of saving the time and costs that would be incurred in extracting all of the calls

 

the call can be confirmed as made by the company as they match the call logs provided

 

if the transcripts have been entered into the court, can the company demand that all of the recordings are entered into the court as well?

 

or can the person withold the recordings as they believe that the recordings are their own personal sensitive data?

[citizenB]

I have flagged your question for those on the site team who might know the answer.

[citizenB]

Some comments for you..

 

Here they are

 

That would be akin to the OP demanding that the company handed over their computer equipment to search through their recordings.

 

So he is within his rights to tell them to go take a hike.. yes

 

Personally I would be tempted to say to them "yes by all means you can access the recordings on my 'phone, but in exchange for me having access to your computer system to access your recordings" & see what they say.

 

After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[cerberusalert]

Alternatively you could always refer them to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.

[cerberusalert]

have you made a complaint to the ICO over their refusal to provide the SAR?

 

repeated DSAR requests of the companys recordings of the calls are refused as the company say they may be considered sensitive data

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 entitles an individual to request from a data controller a copy of the information constituting personal data about him. This right is subject to a number of exemptions in Part IV and schedule 7. There is nothing in section 7, nor Directive 95/46/EC, limiting the purposes for which a subject access request may be made. There is also nothing to provide for a data controller to require the data subject to state the purposes for which he intends to use information obtained as a result of his subject access request. There are also no exemptions from the right of access where civil legal proceedings are contemplated or ongoing.

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUESTS_AND_LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS.ashx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Their claim to ''sensitivity'' is one I have seen and contested, from experience the ''sensitivity'' is the the fact that the transcript is damning to their case, the mutual exchange of data would I expect a judge to order.

[leeds1]

i think these companies might use the excuse of sensitive data in order to not have to provide records when a Data request is made

 

for example - if they are ringing a number that doesn't belong to the requester of data anymore, like a family member or old number that the requester had used before.

 

i think it could be called "function creep" - where the function has crept into a grey area

 

i think it could be also be called "biographical data" or historical data.