Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"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) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"Mike" wrote in message ... "David Hill" wrote in message ... I wonder how many URGlers are aware that in re posting other peoples 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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*** |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Re data protection act | United Kingdom | |||
OT (just) Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT (just) Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT. Data protection Act | United Kingdom |