The
(discrete) search to appoint a successor to David Smith, soon-to-retire Deputy
Information Commissioner and Director of Data Protection is over.
Shortly,
the successful candidate will be unveiled. Don't worry, it’s not me. And a
(discrete) search will commence to find a suitable replacement for Chris
Graham, soon-to-be outgoing Commissioner.
How
secret should this process be, and when is it appropriate to extend the selection
process?
Given
the transparency and manner in which people can participate in elections for
leaders of political parties, perhaps the time is ripe for a larger group of
people to be involved in selecting public officials who will be involved in
determining information rights enforcement strategies.
After
all, in the UK, we generally police by consent. So, given the resource
challenges that the ICO faces, surely it is right that a significant body of
people help determine the identity of the “independent” person who subsequently
determines the enforcement priorities that his officials will adopt.
Otherwise,
what checks are available? Can we always trust the “backroom bods?”
When
even a person as eminent as the Chairman of the House of Lords Privileges and
Conduct Committee can be alleged to have behaved as badly as he has, why should
it be assumed that the current appointment system is perfectly fit for purpose?
But,
more to the point, why should Data Protection Officers, who actually play a
very significant role in ensuring that organisations comply with their data
protection, be disenfranchised from a compliance process they play such an integral
part in?
If
I had my way, the DPOs of all registered data controllers would be able to
register their interest in participating in the selection process by paying a
£3 fee to the ICO – just as the Labour Party currently allows interested individuals to
participate in elections for party leader.
Hopefully,
it won’t be too long before it is more generally realised that the Office of
the Information Commissioner is, in many respects, a political office. In
determining how precisely how laws will be enforced, the Commissioner currently
exercises his own judgment (supported, presumably, by the ICO Board and his
Executive Committee). But he plays a political role – and this is a role for
which he’s pretty unaccountable to the data controllers he’s regulating.
Future
Commissioners will get one term to rule. And as they won’t need to concern
themselves with the need to remain on good terms with those who would
(previously) have extended their initial appointment, there is a risk that they
will adopt enforcement strategies that will really rub people up the wrong way.
Accordingly,
to give the incoming Commissioner a greater sense of legitimacy, the selection process
really needs to be made more transparent.
The
days are numbered where a meek group of regulated organisations will simply
accept the whim of whomever will be selected to step into a senior office.
So
an election – or even hustings from a selection of the more promising
applicants - would do nicely, thank you.
Source:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Britain%3A_Chairman_of_the_Lords_Privileges_and_Conduct_Committee_Filmed_Snorting_Cocaine_with_Prostitutes/45224/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Image
credit:
Today’s
image is that of the ballot machine used in Florida during the 2000
Presidential election – many votes were disputed because incompletely punched
holes resulted in “hanging chads.”
.
Posts
