Tim Trent said:-
> So, assuming that a principle has been broken, ignoring WHICH
> principle, WHO has broken it?
Any Data Controller involved, who is processing any of the data subjects
data. As I understand it the EU Directive was framed to block the 'its not
me' defence against a breach, which had allowed some unscrupulous Data
Uers/Computer Bureau to deliberately 'get around' the protections provided
by the old framework, by strengthening the data controller responsibilities.
Chris Bayliss on 24 September 2003 at 16:14 asked:-
> What has this got to do with DATA protection? There is nothing in the
> act that obliges people to accept email
> from particular systems or to force particular policies on people running
list servers. I'm not aware of any
> other legislation preventing mail managers from applying policies
regarding which systems they accept email from.
Whilst I quite agree with the underlying philosophy that personal data
protection should not be an issue within the telecommunications sphere,
until the telecommunications sphere minimises its processing of personal
data to the extent that it facilitates that situation, by utilising
effective forms of PETS, the definitions within the DPA do seem to capture
much of that processing. Accepting that the sector as a whole, to make it
easier to maintain/change things as the sector believes necessary, in order
to achieve the free flow of information, would rather data protection were
not a complicating issue, it does seem to be.
Putting any commercial tactics, subterfuge and pressures aside, when a lack
of co-ordination at two disparate points within a system causes what appears
to be/have been a large number of general users personal data to not be
processed as expected, that would seem to fit within even the most basic
security criteria. Dependant on other factors, coupled with the various
legal frameworks and contracts there would also appear to be a probable
benefit in questioning the fair/legal aspects.
Ian W
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Bayliss
Sent: 24 September 2003 16:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spam blocks gone mad
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 03:25:51PM +0100, Tim Trent wrote:
> I'm not sure if my reply will get through! I'm working at home today,
> using BT as my ISP.
>
> JANET is unaffected. They are the party who has started to use the
> MAPS list of IP addresses that are being spam blocked. When I say
> "unaffected" I mean, of course, that their outbound mail is unaffected
> unless their IP addresses are spamblocked elsewhere.
JANET have a MATS RBL+ feed, which various sites use. It is a commercial
service which appears to be run in a very professional manner.
> BT are now working hard at resolving the matter. It is an issue of
> the "unpoliced" state of some lists, the "impossibility" of some
> lists, especially some of their amateur nature. MAPS, for example,
> sends reports to email addresses in the format of "abuse@ip address of
> issuing mail server" and refuses (currently) to understand that a huge
> operator such as BT has mail servers which fire mail out through many
> "load balancing" front end machines which have IP addresses but no
> capability to receive email addressed in such a manner.
This isn't correct. When the BT addresses referred to were listed in the
RBL, there was a copy of the email sent to the abuse address
([log in to unmask]), and not "abuse@ip address of issuing mail server".
See
http://www.mailabuse.com/cgi-bin/show_listing.cgi?673081
for an example of a listed BTinternet address. As you will see the warning
was sent to [log in to unmask] It appears that BTinternet choose to
resource their abuse address in such a way that all people receive is an
automated reply. If BT had replied to the original message they may well
have been able to avoid getting listed.
I managed to contact their abuse team on 10th September and received a
response the next day (this was not none through their abuse address). I'm
surprised that it is taking so long to sort out.
>
> Additionally the helpdesk at BT is in need of education.
>
> This does not yet solve the problem, of course.
>
> And that doesn't even get us to working out what, if any, DP
> Principles are being broken, nor by whom.
>
> Let's assume an unnamed principle has been broken. BT is not the data
> processor for email, yet is not the data controller. By definition
> one must be one or the other. But I do not contract with BT to be my
> data processor any more that I contract with any other mail routing
> organisation. BT does not contract with the providers of the IP
> address lists, nor does it contract with (eg) Maps, nor Messagelabs.
>
> JANET (in this learned list's case) is not the Data Processor (for me
> at
> least) nor the data controller, yet it again must be one or the other.
> But JANET contracts with Maps to provide an IP address list.
>
> So, assuming that a principle has been broken, ignoring WHICH
> principle, WHO has broken it?
It isn't at all clear that any principles have been broken in refusing the
email. MAPS list addresses using certain published criteria. It is
relatively easy to get in and out of the lists. Various JANET sites choose
not to accept mail form addresses provided in those listings. They are IP
addresses and not personal data.
What has this got to do with DATA protection? There is nothing in the act
that obliges people to accept email from particular systems or to force
particular policies on people running list servers. I'm not aware of any
other legislation preventing mail managers from applying policies regarding
which systems they accept email from.
If the message itself constitutes personal data, where is the obligation to
process it?
If BTinternet are tolerant of spammers, or unresponsive to complaints, their
customers will start to suffer as people block email from their servers. If
customers are unhappy with this they are at liberty to take their custom
elsewhere. I hope that this is something of a one off and they will sort it
out soon.
Chris Bayliss
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|