|
The Journal Oversight Board (JOB) is an independent body set up to adjudicate
in the case of complaints about the editorial content of The Pharmaceutical
Journal or the handling of such complaints by its editorial staff. It
has investigated the following case.
The complaint The facts, as the JOB understands them, are that the complainant
(Mr X) wrote to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society asking for a letter
published in The Pharmaceutical Journal in 2004 to be removed from its
online archive.
Mr X stated that he was concerned about “identity theft” and
that it was a matter of politeness for the Society to agree to such a
request from one of its members.
Mr X went on to state that he wrote to the Secretary and Registrar who
had not replied. He then wrote to the editor, who passed on his complaint
to the editor of PJ Online.
The editor of PJ Online did not accede to Mr X’s request. He stated
that he was responsible for a complete archive and that it was not possible
to remove material from the printed version, which forms part of a national
archive in which publishers are required to deposit their publications.
He further argued that removing sections of the online archive would
place this version out of kilter with the printed archive and undermine
its integrity. He added that others had made the same request and that
these requests had also been declined on the same grounds.
Mr X regarded this reply as unsatisfactory because he believed that it
did not enable him to protect himself against identity theft and because
he believed that no one, other than perhaps the editor, was interested
in the historical record of The Pharmaceutical Journal. He also stated
that he regarded the reply as “most unfriendly, curt and submissive”.
He again asked that the relevant material be removed from the archive
and that he be given an apology.
The findings Is Mr X entitled to demand that the published text be removed
from the online archive? The first consideration here is whether, in
submitting a letter for publication without a request that his name and
place of residence be withheld, he gave permission for it to be published
by The Pharmaceutical Journal, in that context and without time limit.
It is the JOB’s view that this is what Mr X did, and the fact that
it has been published in both a printed and an electronic form is not
relevant. The printed version, which will also survive in perpetuity,
provides the same information and, although less accessible, could still
be viewed by someone who was unscrupulous.
Mr X referred to the Data Protection Act. JOB members are not lawyers
but they are unable to see how the Act is applicable in this case. The
Act covers personal data, which is defined as data that can identify
an individual and includes any expression of opinion about the individual
and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other
person in respect of the individual. As the information Mr X sought to
remove does not express any opinion about him and does not include any
indication of the intentions of The Journal in relation to him it is
hard to see how the Act could apply.
In addition, the Act provides exemptions from a data subject’s
rights for what it calls “special purposes”, one of which
is journalism.
Sections 3, 32(1) and 32(2)(b) of the Act exempt these special purposes
from a data subject’s S10 right to require a data processor to
cease processing of personal data. We believe that these sections apply
in this case, particularly given the special importance of the public
interest in freedom of expression and publication in the public interest
set out in S32(1)(b).
The second issue is whether the inclusion of Mr X’s name and area
of residence in the online archive does in any meaningful way put him
at risk of identity fraud. The correspondence refers to his name and
the city in which he lives. It does not reveal any further information
about him, other than the implication that as a member of the Society
he is a pharmacist. It is therefore hard to see how the inclusion of
his name in a three-year old letter on the website of a professional
journal puts him at any more risk than the tens of thousands of professionals
(including every GP and hospital consultant in the UK) whose details
are readily available on the internet, often with much more detail than
the basic information about Mr X, which he sought to have removed.
Is it reasonable for the Society to turn down Mr X’s request? He
challenged the PJ Online editor’s claim that altering the online
version would put it out of kilter with the printed archive and undermine
its integrity. We do not regard this as a trivial point. Over time it
is possible that the online archive will be the only one being accessed.
It seems reasonable that it should be accurate and should not be amended
unless there are legal requirements to do so. This is also regarded as
good practice in medical and health publishing — for example, neither
the BMJ nor The Lancet permits any alteration of its archives. Any subsequent
modification can be signalled by an erratum or a statement of retraction
but eliminating material is absolutely ruled out.
Mr X argued that no one would care if parts of the archive were removed.
Again that does not seem to the JOB to be a reasonable proposition — the
editor has a duty to protect the archive and it is possible, for example,
that a historian of the Society or of British pharmacy would be interested
in researching the archive.
Mr X’s allegation that the Secretary and Registrar failed to respond
to his initial complaint is not a matter for the JOB.
Mr X was concerned at the tone of the letter sent by the editor of PJ Online.
The JOB regards his letter as business-like and, while accepting that it could
have been warmer, for example, by regretting that The Journal could not help
with Mr X’s request and hoping that he would understand, it does not
accept that the PJ Online editor’s response was in any way inappropriate.
The decision On the basis of the above findings the JOB does not believe
that an apology is justified and sees no grounds to uphold Mr X’s
complaint.
The JOB recommends that The Pharmaceutical Journal includes in its guidance
for contributors a clear statement to the effect that once material has
been published on the website contributors will not have the right to
have it removed or edited.
Journal Oversight Board
15 March 2007 |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal