The Data Protection Act protects the personal data which is stored about you by different people .The 8 principles of the act are :
* Processed fairly and lawfully
* Processed for limited purposes
* Adequate relevant and not excessive
* Not kept for longer than necessary
* Processed in accordance with the individual's rights
* Kept secure
* not transferred to countries without adequate protection.
Schools have permission from the home office and parents to know every thing about you whether it your mums name or you brothers. The police and the home office also have all our personal information. Teachers and anyone else who has your personal information cannot tell anyone anything about you.
There have been many people who have been prosecuted for disobeying the data protection act and here is one example. In 1995 the ODPR brought a case against a manger of the Woolwich Building Society for disclosing personal data to a person not sanctioned by the Woolwich's data protection register entry. This was a case, therefore, of the Woolwich, through one of its staff operating outside the terms of its registration. The manager had been trying to trace a Woolwich customer who was allegedly in arrears with her Woolwich mortgage. In doing so the manager disclosed to a tenant of the customer that she was in arrears. The manager was successfully prosecuted for the unauthorized disclosure. On the basis that the prosecution had jeopardized the manager's career the Court dealt with the matter relatively leniently by imposing a conditional discharge.
The data protection act has now been in force for a long period of time and many organizations are finding it hard to abide by. Many companies still are not aware of the obligations under it. This act is particularly aimed at people with business.
The computer misuse act is designed to secure computers and data against unauthorized access or modification and covers a number of offences such as:
* Unauthorized access to computer material (basic hacking) including the illicit copying of software held in any computer. The penalty for this is up to six months imprisonment or up to a 5,000-pound fine.
* Unauthorized access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences, which covers more serious cases of hacking. The penalty of this is imprisonment and unlimited amount of fine.
* Unauthorized modification of computer material which includes:
Intentional destruction of data and software and which is unauthorized, the circulation of infected materials on line and an unauthorized addition of a password to a data file. The penalty for this is up to five years of imprisonment and an unlimited amount of fine.
If someone in the school deliberately spread a virus or damaged a piece of the computer the school suspend or may be even expel the pupil and make the pupils parents pay for the damages.
An example of someone breaking this act was Steve Gold and Robert Schifrin who were the first hackers to become well known in the UK. They were responsible for hacking Pestle in 1984 and gained notoriety for obtaining system manager status and hacking Prince Phillip's mailbox.
They were raided on 10th April 1985 and, in the world's first hacking-related jury trial, were charged with forgery (there being no anti-hacking laws in the UK at that time). Found guilty on various specimen charges, Schifreen was fined £750 and Gold £600, with £1,000 costs each. They were both acquitted on appeal, which resulted in the introduction of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which now outlaws hacking in the UK.
The computer misuse act does not work particularly well the latest home office figures show that 19 cases were proceeded against in 2000, and when the computer misuse act added to another offence like fraud only a further 63 were preceded. The year 1999 was even worse: only 13 principal cases brought. It is not as if the conviction rate is low. Of the 19 principal offences in 2000, 15 were found guilty.
This led to five fines, two community sentences and four jail sentences with the rest conditionally discharged. Not a bad hit rate. But not a deterrent in itself.
The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 came into force on 1 August 1989.The owner of copyright has the right to copy it, issue it to the public in any form. This act is designed to a subsequent amendment to the 1988 Copyright Act confused the issue of lifetime of Copyright by acting retrospectively. This amendment came into effect on 1st January 1996. This meant that some materials that had come out of copyright suddenly gained Copyright again. It increased the term of Copyright (for some works) from 50 to 70 years from 31st December of the year the creator died. For anonymous works then it is 70 years from the end of the year of publication. In all aspects, it is best to refer to the Law in operation at the time the material was created, for example if a photograph was created in 1956, then you have to refer to the 1956 Copyright Act to define the Copyright owner and who to approach for clearance.
Law firms are now trying to crackdown on copyright and are now being advised alert clients and there own staff to the dangers of having illegal copyright material on pc's following tougher regulations which have now been introduced. Many people have breached this act by copying music from internet sites. Ihave not bu t many people that I now are and they are not aware tat this is illegal.
The health and safety act is designed to make further for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work, for controlling the keeping and use and preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of dangerous substances, and for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere; to make further provision with respect to the employment medical advisory service; to amend the law relating to building regulations, and the Building (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes.
This act applies to everyone who works for example my parents and in the future it will apply to me aswell. This act effects my parents because it is all about working in a safe place, and the responsibilities of employers and employees. This act use to effect my dad a couple of years ago when he use to work at a large company like rover. In a large company health and safety rules are vital one of the rules that use to affect him that he wore safety equipment when making products.
In some workplaces it is the councils responsibility to ensure that the workplace is safe to work in while in places such as the fishing industry it is the responsibility of the health industry.
There have been many injuries caused by workplace accidents and also in workplace conditions so here are some statistics showing how many people had accidents in different years:
* There were 235 fatal injuries to workers in 2003/04, which is a rate of 0.81 per hundred thousand workers.
* In 2002/03, employers reported 154 230 other injuries which is a rate of 614.1 per hundred thousand employees.
This act is designed to show us all the health and safety regulations and why they are needed. We need these regulations because These Regulations bring into force the EC Safety Signs Directive (92/58/EEC) on the provision and use of safety signs at work. The purpose of the Directive is to encourage the standardization of safety signs throughout the member states of the European Union so that safety signs, wherever they are seen, have the same meaning. These regulations require employers to provide specific safety signs whenever there is a risk that has not been avoided or controlled by other means, eg by engineering controls and safe systems of work. Where a safety sign would not help to reduce that risk, or where the risk is not significant, there is no need to provide a sign;
These regulations effect the staffs routines at my local community group because, they have to make everything safe for example if there is a wet patch the workers there should put a sign up saying so, if they don't and someone slips and falls the blame will go on them. This is one way how this act effects me and socially. The uk national health service makes sure that these regulations are ensured.
This act is about defining the powers the government and it's security, intelligence and communications and data. This act allows the government to issue an interception warrant to an ISP (or even a mobile phone company) for some communications data, on vague grounds such as "national security", "preventing or detecting crime" or even "safe guarding the economic well being of the UK". If they do this, the employee(s) the interception warrant is served to must comply with it or face 2 years in jail. They must NEVER tell anyone about it either or face five years in jail. Thus the government could demand all the data that flows to and from your internet account and you would never be allowed to know about it.
I think this is not a good act because the act requires of any employee of a company providing a public telecommunications service that they obey interception warrants or face up to 2 years in jail.