> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Su Goulding
> Sent: 30 January 2004 14:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Inattentive Commissioner e-mail alert service
>
> IMHO - there is a real red herring distinction being made
> about the dp vs privacy regs in respect of corporate &
> individual subscribers. Individual subscribers are protected
> by the privacy regs, but corporate subscribers aren't -
> although they could be protected by dp in order to be removed
> from a mailing list. The technical distinction becomes
> redundant in practice. Thank you for letting me get that off
> my Friday chest.
> Su
Hi Su
My take on it is that the EC Directive (2002/58/EC) that the privacy
regs implement is supposed to explain how Data Protection principles
apply to electronic communications. So even if spamming an address like
[log in to unmask] is legal within the words of the Privacy Regs,
there has to be a strong presumption that Data Protection has been
breached, 'cos that e-mail address is personal data no matter whether I
pay for the bit after the @ sign or not. Or am I applying too much of
this "common sense" stuff ???
Incidentally, paragraph 4 of the recital to the Directive says
"(4) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(5) translated the
principles set out in Directive 95/46/EC into specific rules for the
telecommunications sector. Directive 97/66/EC has to be adapted to
developments in the markets and technologies for electronic
communications services in order to provide an equal level of protection
of personal data and privacy for users of publicly available electronic
communications services, regardless of the technologies used. That
Directive should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Directive."
Which seems to make clear that both 2002/58/EC and 97/66/EC don't extend
the data protection rules set out in 95/46/EC, they simply clarify its
application to a particular set of circumstances.
Andrew
--------------------
Andrew Cormack
Chief Security Advisor
UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Ox11 0QS, UK
Phone: +44 (0)1235 822302
Fax: +44 (0)1235 822399
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|