Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |