Letters | Sunday, 21 December 2008

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Data protection ruling for Constitutional review

The expert in obfuscation has done it again. Edgar Galea Curmi (MaltaToday, 7 December) used the notorious verb ‘to conceal’, in my regard – what cheek!
I pity the man. What can he attribute to others, if his only resource is full of camouflage itself?
I did not publish the said Data Protection Commission ruling as I shall, soon, contest it in the Courts of Law and I ask you to spare me the merits of the case, for now, if you may. But read what article 9 of Cap 440 of the Data Protection Act states, on Articles 9(e) and 9(f) in particular, since Galea Curmi chose to refer to them without letting you know what they say.
9. Personal data may be processed only if: (a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or (b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; or (d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or (e) processing is necessary for the performance of an activity that is carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data is disclosed; or (f) processing is necessary for a purpose that concerns a legitimate interest of the controller or of such a third party to whom personal data is provided, except where such interest is overridden by the interest to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject and in particular the right to privacy.
I wish to ask only three questions at this stage: what did I make public in the TV programme, quoted by Galea Curmi, to merit the Prime Minister’s reaction to pass a strictly confidential email to the said Mr Galea Curmi for the latter to quote out of context (he left out some three paragraphs which he knows would have belied his trickery) and pass it to a soap-chatterer on TV?
And since when does the law allow a breach of its own fundamental reason of being enacted just because ‘Jo Said levied (sic) allegations against the PM’?
Lastly, why does the ruling fail to address the case in respect of third parties who were also summoned? It is quite spooky, to say the least.
This blurred and distorted reasoning reminds me of other commissions and authorities where such thwarted conclusions have been drawn to appease someone or other. MEPA is one of them. And (mind you – all by coincidence) they seem to be part of the Prime Minister’s portfolio. It is, by default, an extension of the hijacked-PN’s shady way of thinking as Paul Borg Olivier’s and Lawrence Gonzi’s email scandal confirms. That makes EGC very prone to the same morphed and twisted logic. Or is it the other way around?
We shall soon see what the Constitutional Court will decree.

Jo Said
Selmun

Correspondence on this issue is now closed.

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.