Interesting Turn of Phrase

[PotNoodleTech]

From some Safeguarding Training material:

 

"There is no ‘Data Protection’ when we deal with ‘Child Protection’. We must share information –we all have a piece of the ‘jigsaw’.

 

Comments? I don't think they quite meant, how it reads.

[synaesthesia]

Of course it's utter nonsense, if anything data protection is stricter when regarding child protection, but we all know that. I suspect it's meant to read something along the lines of all parties involved in the care and protection of a child should share relevant information within the scope and context of their care.

[jthompson]

Yep, let's not heap privacy violations onto the top of whatever else may be occurring.

[Jawloms]

Presumably I'm reading it differently. I'm taking it as "If you need to tell some official body/person something about a child which you wouldn't normally tell them due to data protection but there's a child protection issue if you don't, then you tell them".

[jthompson]

"No data protection" suggests that any old member of staff is okay to share confidential student info without taking data protection into account, 'because child protection' (like sending it unencrypted to an external email address, or leaving paperwork on someone's desk unattended, etc.). It suggests that data protection measures can be abandoned for the sake of expediency, when in fact, that's where data protection may be particularly important.

[elsiegee40]

Badly written. I can see what they are getting at; however, it is statements like this which foster the incorrect assertion that Safeguarding trumps everything. You must act within all laws and balance risks .

[GrumbleDook]

Terribly worded and extremely dangerous. It gives a false impression of what and why things are done.

 

If you can PM me the details of the provider please so I can point them to someone who *can* word it better (UKSIC, various AACOSS members, etc.)

[enjay]

Presumably I'm reading it differently. I'm taking it as "If you need to tell some official body/person something about a child which you wouldn't normally tell them due to data protection but there's a child protection issue if you don't, then you tell them".

 

I think that is what they're trying to say, but they're doing it very badly. Yes, we can share information we might otherwise not, but we must still share it in appropriate ways.

[Jawloms]

but we must still share it in appropriate ways.

 

Absolutely!

[AndrewSharp]

Dangerously simplistic and likely to lead to inappropriate data handling if trainees are led to believe that attempting to do good justifies any action including cutting corners on data protection.

 

Both data protection and safeguarding are centred on the rights of the data subject and neither approach to doing the right thing should impede the other if we stay focused on that.

 

There's certainly a need to share data with those who need to know within a school and with other agencies, and we've seen how poor communication can make things worse or fail to spot problems effectively. That data is sensitive, however, and the data subject is likely to be more vulnerable than most, so we need an even more careful approach than usual to ensure that data is shared appropriately and securely.

[GrumbleDook]

The phrase would be better if it was something like ...

 

Within Safeguarding, data protection has a vital place but not just to restrict unsafe practices that create safe guarding risks, but to make sure the people understand Safeguarding is a clear and valid purpose for sharing data, and that it is easy to find that “lawful basis” when you do need to share.

 

We shouldn’t view data protection as a reason to stop sharing, only to be mindful of our reasons and the methods we use.

[Leeoakley]

you should really contact the course creator with suggested amendments.

[PotNoodleTech]

I agree with you all, I've highlighted it and passed it upwards.