Hmmm. You should have posted the above before nine this morning.

Sorry :-((

Bad day yesterday. Lorry crash involving 3 lanes North and 1 South on the M3
a short while before I was there, M25, M4 to Heathrow, followed by M1
closure which entailed M4, M25, M40, A43, thence M1 to Leicester to see
Mother in Law :-((((((((((((

Then M69, A45, M40, A34, M3, M27 to Portsmouth.

0815 departure from home on Isle of Wight.
400 miles later.
2215 arrive at home on Isle of Wight.

Oh hell. Nothing to do with Gardening.

Just watch the net nannies report me to my ISP now.

Merry Christmas to those NOT in Net Nanny mode.

Mike

Do you know I didn't see much Moss growing on the Busy Streets called
Motorways yesterday
(To bring back to Gardening Mode and save the net nannies waving their
officious stick)

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
"...........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.

The act stinks with anomalies. Even the address list which Outlook Express
keeps for my personal use is not supposed to hold data on any person for
more than 30 days. In principle every user of OE should registrer with the
Data Protection Registrar.

Franz

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

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
If anyone
wants to go deeper into it, I suggest that you contact the Data
Protection
Department of your local Council and in view of the recent publicity,
stand
by for confussion :-((

I am not sure if you are joking here but in my experience public bodies
frequently cite the DPA as an excuse for all sorts of things without
having
any real understanding of the rules.

Indeed. When I recently switched my electric account to NPower (who already
had my gas account) they said they werent allowed to go to the gas side of
NPower to get my bank detals and so forth 'because of the data protection
act'. Obviously complete ******** (its all the same company FFS) but its
such a crap and poorly worded law that it make an excellent excuse for
poorly organised companies, police forces and local authorities to use as a
scapegoat.

If you need advice then they go
elsewhere such as the Information Commissioner.


Fat lot of use that is, the way the DP act works is that no one knows what
it actually means and its left open to each individual to make their own
interpretation of the law. The penalty for being wrong is that you get
prosecuted and fined or jailed. Hence stupid actions such as Humberside
police. The Information Commissioner (who I think I heard speak about
Humberside Police recently) said pretty much this AFAICR, ie he (or she)
certainly wasnt going to be so bold as to actually state what was covered,
no doubt because they have no clue either.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

snip

That's beside the point and trivial ... this is what the data protection act
does and what we have to thank for.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...112118,00.html

L

"Franz wrote in message after

"David wrote in message
"...........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.

The act stinks with anomalies. Even the address list which Outlook
Express
keeps for my personal use is not supposed to hold data on any person for
more than 30 days. In principle every user of OE should registrer with
the
Data Protection Registrar.


I thought it was only relevant to businesses like David's not to private
individuals or we would all be in trouble with our Christmas Cards lists
etc. which cannot be the idea of the act.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
351 data units completed.

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

I thought it was only relevant to businesses like David's not to private
individuals or we would all be in trouble with our Christmas Cards lists
etc. which cannot be the idea of the act.

DPA is applicable to everyone, but you don't need to register simple
address lists. If you keep additional information, you should register,
so in theory you're all right if you just keep names and addresses, but
as soon as you start marking who sent you a Christmas card this year you
have to register ;-)
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:33:58 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

I thought it was only relevant to businesses like David's not to private
individuals or we would all be in trouble with our Christmas Cards lists
etc. which cannot be the idea of the act.

DPA is applicable to everyone, but you don't need to register simple
address lists. If you keep additional information, you should register,
so in theory you're all right if you just keep names and addresses, but
as soon as you start marking who sent you a Christmas card this year you
have to register ;-)

This is off topic.
--
Martin

In article , Peter Crosland
writes
If anyone
wants to go deeper into it, I suggest that you contact the Data Protection
Department of your local Council and in view of the recent publicity,
stand
by for confussion :-((

I am not sure if you are joking here but in my experience public bodies
frequently cite the DPA as an excuse for all sorts of things without having
any real understanding of the rules.

As we've seen only too clearly in the last couple of weeks, with first
Soham and then British gas.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:35:51 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Peter Crosland
writes
If anyone
wants to go deeper into it, I suggest that you contact the Data Protection
Department of your local Council and in view of the recent publicity,
stand
by for confussion :-((

I am not sure if you are joking here but in my experience public bodies
frequently cite the DPA as an excuse for all sorts of things without having
any real understanding of the rules.

As we've seen only too clearly in the last couple of weeks, with first
Soham and then British gas.

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.
--
Martin

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:44:49 +0100, martin wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:35:51 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Peter Crosland
writes
If anyone
wants to go deeper into it, I suggest that you contact the Data Protection
Department of your local Council and in view of the recent publicity,
stand
by for confussion :-((

I am not sure if you are joking here but in my experience public bodies
frequently cite the DPA as an excuse for all sorts of things without having
any real understanding of the rules.

As we've seen only too clearly in the last couple of weeks, with first
Soham and then British gas.

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leade...111338,00.html
"The singularity of the Soham killings should militate against
kneejerk solutions, undertaken in the wish that such a crime should
never happen again. Even so, the need for reform is urgent. The lapses
that allowed the nine accusations of rape or sexual assault - five of
them involving underage girls, one as young as 11 - to disappear from
Ian Huntley's record were due not to a loophole in the law but a
failure in its application. Contrary to the claim by the Chief
Constable of Humberside, the 1984 Data Protection Act does not oblige
the deletion of untested charges."
--
Martin

"Mike" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote in message
...
I wonder how many URGlers are aware that in re posting other peoples
email
addresses as part of a post/message like the following example is
actually
an offence under the data protection act.


As others have pointed out, you are I am afraid incorrect

The Data Protection Act is very 'wooly' and has more holes in it than a
worn
out cardigan,

BUT

There are elements in it which could prove to be very costly if a person
is
sued under the Act, 'if' it stuck, that is why people are very wary of it.

I have 1000's and 1000's of names and addresses of those who have served
in
the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. I have them on card index, file index
and computer, but have NOT had to register with the Data Protection Act
because of how they are accessable and how they are used.

My understanding of the matter is that you are in fact in an illegal
situation, as indeed I am. I keep an address list containing some
additional information about members of a Society on whose Committee I
serve.
I do believe that anybody who keeps data in a computer-readable form for
more than 30 days is supposed to contact the Data Protection Registrar in
order to explain what the data is and how it is to be used. I have no
intention about doing that. It is too much of a hassle and is quite stupid.
If I had kept all the data simply on a paper file, I would not have had to
contact the Registrar. Which is a pile of crap, because with optical
character reading software, even paper files are computer readable.


[snip]

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike
wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike
wrote:

The Data Protection Act is very 'wooly' and has more holes in it than
a
worn
out cardigan,

A nice analogy. And, unfortunately, all too true.

What surprised and amazed me was it depends 'how' use you it kept and
used
as to whether you a required to register. Even a list of telephone
numbers
with some details of those people listed on a piece of paper, 'could'
make
you be liable for registering. Stretching it I know but nevertheless :-(

Not stretching it at all, I am afraid. The first DPA made it illegal
for anyone to write a paper on a computer and include references without
registering. The first Registrar said publicly that he intended not to
enforce the Act in that respect.

If I could have found a way to herd cats, I would have tried to get
every academic and PhD or masters student in the country to apply for
registration, and then taken the Registrar to court on the grounds of
not responding in time. Not his fault, but it would have shown up the
Act for the fiasco it was.

The new one is subtly different. If you arrange a work party more than
a specified period ahead of time, and have a list of people going and what
food they have ordered, you must register. No computer need be involved.

I am surprised to hear this. I had thought that the bit about "computer
readable form" was part of the act.
This must be a moderately recent addition. If not, I was acting illegally
when I still worked for a living, when I told my staff that all the
information about students' coursework was to be kept on paper until we got
ourselves sttraightened with the DPR. ( I need hardly add that that was a
pure formality, just to keep my nose clean. Neither I nor my staff paid
any attention to my ukase.)

Franz

"Larry Stoter" wrote in message
.uk...
The Data Protection Act is, I consider, a splendid example of poorly
considered legislation, pushed through in response to some pressure
group by politicians who don't have the first idea what they are talking
about in an attempt to garner favour.

It is complex and full of holes, with little thought given to
enforcement and no proper financial provision to enable enforcement.
Another good example is the Dangerous Dogs Act. In both cases, the
number of attempted and successful court cases, makes it clear that
almost nobody has the slightest idea what they mean or could cost.

My personal concern is that the current publicity will lead to a review
and clarification, which I would find a bit of a problem. As part of my
current job, I am often asked to provide information of various sorts,
which I don't really have the time to collect and would often prefer not
to supply. Currently, my standard reply of:

" ... under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, I am unable to
supply this information without the explicit written permission of the
peope concerned. Should you wish me to seek this written permission, I
need a written request from you to so do."

So far, nobody has ever taken up my invitation :-) If it all gets
clarified, I'm going to have to work a lot harder :-((

Actually I was once approaches by a Civil Servant with a request for
information about one of my students who had applied for a somewhat
sensitive defence post. Just for the hell of it, I refused, unless the
enquirer did what you mentioed above. I heard no more about it and the
student got the job. He is now a very senior retired naval officer, and he
does not know of that incident.

Franz

Sorry Martin but how can a "Can of worms" like this be of topic

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk
***2004 catalogue now available***