Privacy, Consent, and Professional Responsibility
Reflective Piece (Unit 4 Case Study)

What?

This seminar activity asked me to analyse a short case study involving access to public records for research purposes. The scenario centred on Ricardo, a government records clerk, and Beth, a researcher who had been granted access to anonymised property tax data but wanted names and addresses in order to seek further consent. My task was to identify the ethical issues at each decision point, particularly around privacy, consent, and responsibility, and to justify what actions would be appropriate.

In my submission, I approached the case by linking each question to relevant data protection principles and professional obligations. I focused on the distinction between authorised and unauthorised access, the role of the data controller, and the limits of consent. I also considered how research needs must be balanced against individuals’ reasonable expectations about how their data is used. The analysis drew on UK GDPR principles, ICO guidance, and professional codes of conduct to explain why convenience for research does not override privacy or accountability.

So what?

Working through this case made me more aware of how easily ethical boundaries can be blurred in everyday professional settings. On the surface, Beth’s request appears reasonable, and Ricardo’s technical ability to access the data might make disclosure feel harmless. Reflecting on the case forced me to confront the fact that ethical issues often arise not from malicious intent, but from small decisions that bypass agreed processes.

One of the most important realisations for me was how responsibility does not disappear just because a task seems helpful or well-intentioned. Even if Ricardo personally believes the research is worthwhile, releasing identifiable data without proper authority shifts accountability onto him and undermines the trust placed in public institutions. The consent scenario further reinforced that silence cannot be treated as agreement. I found this particularly relevant, as it is tempting in practice to treat non-response as neutral when deadlines or sample sizes are under pressure. This exercise made it clear that ethical research sometimes means accepting limitations rather than bending rules to meet targets.

Now what?

Going forward, this case will influence how I think about data access and research governance in professional contexts. I am now more conscious of the importance of clear role boundaries, especially between technical access and decision-making authority. Just because someone can access data does not mean they should, and this distinction needs to be actively maintained.

I also take away a stronger appreciation for process-based solutions, such as mediated contact through a data controller, rather than direct disclosure of personal information. In future work involving data analysis, assessment, or research support, I will be more likely to question whether a request genuinely meets legal and ethical standards, rather than focusing on efficiency or outcomes alone. This reflection reinforced that protecting privacy is not simply about compliance, but about maintaining public trust and professional integrity, even when doing so complicates or constrains the work.

References

• BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT (2022) BCS Code of Conduct.
• European Union (2016) General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
• Information Commissioner’s Office (2023–2025) UK GDPR guidance on research, consent, and anonymisation.
• UK Government (2018) Data Protection Act 2018.
• Driscoll, J. (2007) Practising Clinical Supervision. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier.