Gentlemen,
With regard assumed consent, I have recently been working in the utility
sector, and specifically studying the Thames Water undertaking.
It is very interesting to note that consent to market non water related
products (something which the DPC is very cautious about given the
monopolistic nature of this industry) can be inferred from, what is in
effect a non response!
The ruling clearly states that there must be correspondence, and there must
be a response back to the data controller, BUT ... if the water customer
fails to tick either of the 'I Object' or 'I Do Not Object' boxes, then the
data controller can assume that this means they DO want to receive direct
marketing on non water related products and services.
So, as a water customer, my lack of care/interest/sight of the consent
device, and subsequent failure to indicate either way, can be inferred to
mean I do not object to specific processing.
Have a (close) look at the ruling, it makes interesting reading with regard
interpreting 'inferred consent'.
Duncan
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Assumed Consent was Re: Contact Details
In a message dated 22/01/2001 14:28:45 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Are you saying that on the first mailshot the subject is asked and then
has
to explicitly opt-in for further mailshots to be send
(ie. no reply = opt-out). >>
-------------
Generally speaking, yes. Although they can still opt in negatively. In
other words you can still have a box for them to tick to opt out but if the
form doesn't get returned you don't have consent. It will be very difficult
to have a "write and let us know" policy - how long would you wait to give
them an opportunity to opt in/out?
|