Data Protection Act 1998
Chris Croughton
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:21:53 +0000, Dave J
<req...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I'm not against the DPA per-se, i like it's impact on big business
> databases. I'm against it's impact on home users, I dislike the idea
> of having to register if I wanted to try to compile a database of
> useneteers for my geek club. (Don't know if that's valid, but you get
> the idea I'm sure)
If you were compiling the list without their permission, you might run
into trouble even with the earlier Act. If it's with their permission,
there is no problem, recreational activities are exempt even under the
later Act. For instance, I am (as probably everyone here knows by know)
involved in SF fandom, and for running conventions we obviously have to
have not just email addresses but also 'real' names and contact
addresses. It isn't a problem, because all of the members sign to say
that their information may be held on computer[1], we don't need to
register. We have had this checked out legally.
[1] Or, as I said to Ali recently, their particulars may be held be a
fully-functional android <g>.
> My real point though (made cos I feel like making it) is about the
> importance of the small joes being able to find ways around
> restrictions. One of the costs of being a large company is less
> 'wriggle room'. It's an important cost, without it microshaft would
> own the planet by now.
Certainly, and that is the main point of it still.
> I believe in the law because it (almost) keeps the bigger companies in
> check.
Replace 'almost' by 'sometimes' and I'll agree with you.
> I believe in (white collar) criminality because it's a way for the
> intelligent to compete despite a lack of capital.
I believe it exists, I don't condone it...
> Without that mechanism, you'd wind up with a very very rich, rather
> dumb through laziness, inbred, power caste and an ill educated,
> powerless, unthinking, hypnotised, poverty class.
And that is different from the current state how, exactly?
> Oh, we've got that already, my mistake.
Indeed...
Chris C
Dave J
uk.net.news.management, 'Clive D. W. Feather' wrote:
>>Please observe the Followup-To newsgroup, that /will/ do something...
>
>Like you, I observed it for several minutes. It didn't do anything, so I
>eliminated the pathetic attempt to whip up off-topic traffic for a dead
>group.
Don't be a smart arse Clive.
I greatly dislike the committee representative of Demon pitting
himself against a discussion group centered on censorship of the net.
This is now *extremely* on topic for uk.net.regulation.
Here we have an example of an ISP's representative attempting to abuse
his status on the uk.* committee to the extent of removing the very
newsgroup that would be used to discuss any future regulatory heavy
handedness by his company.
If that is not an appropriate topic for uk.net.regulation then what
is?
--
Dave Johnson - req...@freeuk.com