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.

"...The message
from
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
The message
from "Arthur" contains these
words:............"



And before anyone says anything I have altered the addresses used in the
example above.

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

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
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.

"...The message
from
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
The message
from "Arthur" contains these
words:............"

And before anyone says anything I have altered the addresses used in the
example above.

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "David Hill" contains these
words:

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.

"...The message
from
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
The message
from "Arthur" contains these
words:............"

And before anyone says anything I have altered the addresses used in the
example above.

I hereby give you permission to repost my (alleged) address unaltered in
the above mode.

--
Tony Anson

Idiot!

"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.

"...The message
from
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
The message
from "Arthur" contains these
words:............"



And before anyone says anything I have altered the addresses used in the
example above.

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

"...........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.

Thank you Ray for your comment, with luck one day you may also reach a high
enough level to also qualify as an "Idiot"...............Keep trying.


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

The act only covers personal/private data. It is unreasonable to expect
anything that is posted to a public place (like a new group) to remain
confidential.


Mike

"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. However when
someone tried to sell some of the Association Secretaries names and
addresses which I made available to selected people for their personal
benefit, I consulted the Trading Standards Officer and had a long discussion
and received a book and video on the subject. As a result of the meeting, I
sent a warning to the prospective seller and he ceased his activity. I now
put the following advice whenever I list Association Names and Addresses:

DATA PROTECTION ACT
These names and addresses are for the use of the Associations, their members
and prospective members. They are not to be copied in any way shape or form,
listed, sold, used, delivered, made available or marketed by a third person
for any reason whatsoever. R.N. Shipmates has not, does not, and will not
give permission for any use other than the direct use of Association
Members, Secretaries or prospective members as detailed above.
Prosecution of the 'collector', 'seller' and 'end user' may arise by
contravening this warning

Please take note of the final bit, 'end user'. YOU can be prosecuted if you
buy a list which is compiled for non commercial benefit, as all of my lists
are.

Getting back to the business of email addresses. No problem here as there is
very little 'information' on the person and you cannot extract a list of,
for example, those in a certain age range, or those who have a certain
qualification. I am not able to press a button on the computer and have a
listing of all those RAF National Servicemen who served between 1947 and
1955. I can find them, but not by the press of a button.

I hope that throws a little light on the Data Protection Act. 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 :-((

Mike

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Mike Tickle" contains these words:

The act only covers personal/private data. It is unreasonable to expect
anything that is posted to a public place (like a new group) to remain
confidential.

How would you define (un)reasonable so that it's unarguable?

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

"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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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 :-(

Mike

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Mike" contains these words:

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

Have you thought - the more worn-out a cardi is the fewer holes there
are in it?

(Old fisherman's joke - which is the better net, one with more holes in
it or the one with less?)

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 think this is criminal law, not civil, so I don't think you can be
sued under the Act, you would be prosecuted. If I'm right in my guess,
this is a pity, because in the case of the last two examples aired in
the media a judge in a civil court could have, in the event the court
found against Humberside Police or the ? Gas Board, have given an
absolute discharge or awarded peppercorn damages to the plaintiff.

As it is, a criminal record could be awarded as thanks for someone's
common sense.

/snip of excellent stuff/

I hope that throws a little light on the Data Protection Act. 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 :-((

Hmmm. You should have posted the above before nine this morning. Still,
my bit of wished-for legislation will be sent to Today programme a bit
late....

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
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.

pedant

Would have been much better if cardigans weren't knitted.......

/pedant

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

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 :-((
--
Larry Stoter

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