> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alasdair Warwood" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Who owns my data?
>
> debates about "ownership of data" is futile and meaningless
Many thanks Alasdair. Did understand the earlier friendly pointer and can
see that this could be a futile debate, but from time to time what appear to
be
futile debates are necessary to conduct, and free society's allow and
protect them in
order to gain the benefits.
The alternative would be to stagnate (-:
Ian W
=
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alasdair Warwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Ian Welton" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Who owns my data?
> Sorry Ian I have to say "don't go there" and re-iterate my earlier
> comments. The legislature , whether European or UK, recognizing that
> debates about "ownership of data" is futile and meaningless has created
the
> next (best) proximate concepts of "fairness" etc. incorporated in the
> Directive and the Act. The law has to operate in the real world - the
> concept of "ownership" of an intangible, infinitely reproducible "thing"
> is, quite literally, meaningless - conduct the debate within the context
of
> the Act.
>
> Alasdair warwood
>
> ----------
> > From: Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Who owns my data?
> > Date: 24 October 2000 23:40
> >
> > There does seem to be a real issue of understanding and clarity needed.
> >
> > Historical legal definitions of ownership, and legal recourses, do not
> > appear to have been intended or determined with the electronic
> environment
> > in mind, many of them actually pre-date the circumstances existing
today.
> > Difficulties with copyright are an example of this (although not
directly
> > comparable). A compounding factor which does make DP hard law to
> > administer, is that many definitions relating to privacy are unique to
> the
> > circumstances appertaining and parties involved.
> >
> > Some of the legal concepts of ownership may fit today's circumstances,
> and
> > must rightly be used, unless society or legislation determines
otherwise.
> > Considering that statement and the scope of other areas left open for
> > interpretation, a situation arises which is pushing toward trying to
> define
> > 'ownership' of personal data, albeit in a looser way than historically
> > understood in the legal sense. Is that not the situation we are in at
> the
> > moment?
> >
> > It is my opinion that if a definition acceptable to all parties is not
> > identified then privacy aspects will constantly cause serious disputes
to
> > arise.
> >
> > Ian W
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who owns my data?
> >
> >
> > > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >
> > > << Sorry, but you do not 'own' it. Information is not owned in that
> way.
> > If
> > > the people you talk about came across the information in any other way
> > > you cannot get it back since you have not lost it.
> > >
> > > What you may have are certain rights, short of ownership, which can be
> > > related to the data. Rights of confidence, copyright, and newly any
> > > privacy rights you manage to assert.
> > >
> > > It is unhelpful and misleading to call these ownership with any intent
> > > to indicate a meaning in law.>>
> > >
> > > -------------------------
> > >
> > > Sorry, I was using the common definition of ownership, not the legal
> > > definition, in relation to the information held about me by
> organisations.
> > >
> > > But if I don't own the intangible data, surely no-one does and this
> could
> > > easily become a pedantic, pointless argument.
> > >
> > > I believe the discussion taking place is really a question of
> "authorised
> > > use" rather than "ownership" and therefore my points (even if not the
> > legally
> > > correct answer) are perfectly valid.
> > >
> > > It may be unhelpful in this instance to muddy the waters further by
> using
> > > strict legal definitions as the DPA does not refer to, nor rely upon,
> > them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian B
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|