In message , David Hill
writes
"...........Actually, no, it isn't. You are not a data holder under either
of the two Acts if you simply reply to a message. If you disagree, please
post or Email a reference to the section of the Act that makes it
illegal........"

Actually the reference came from a programme on Radio 4 today dealing with
the above act, and it was given as one of the lesser known anomalies of the
act, when they were stressing the need for it to be radically revised.

It doesn't follow that what was said on Radio 4 was necessarily accurate
or correct. The act is pretty badly flawed but I don't believe it
criminalises Usenet replies. The reposted data from an existing public
thread isn't sufficiently private or personal information. And even if
it was illegal they would have a hard time prosecuting everyone.

They haven't even got the capacity or the nous to deal with blatant
criminal abuses like the con merchants using the threat of prosecution
for failing to register under the DP act as a scam to rip off legitimate
businesses.

Gardening clubs and nurseries have to be very careful about what data
they hold on their members and customers to stay legal though.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown