Tim Trent on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 2:34 PM said:-
> We are digressing a little into the realms of
> sexual offences instead of data privacy.
A focus was maintained through that area with the example given:-
> (I wonder if the interpretation of 'published' would change
> if the Temporary Internet Files/Internet History were only
> held in RAM - if it does, why is the transmission of such
> material not progressed?)
As a means of exploring the privacy variables for given situations which
then resulted in a communications link, how that was related to data privacy
(or information privacy) and how slight changes in technology at a user
level could affect any given legal answer - Whereas the DPA would seem to
more easily accommodate most of those technological variations.
The Internet History/Files privacy issues appear to be directly allied to
the recording/communications of that detailed material, then seem to become
attached in peoples minds merely to the darker side of things
(terrorism/pornography). On the other hand, the Internet History is also a
direct reflection of any organisations/persons interests; placing that
behind a darker side is not helpful in openly determining the wider
affects/issues of communications privacy and reaching any valid conclusions.
Probably the current societal situation is having an undue influence during
this period in technological development, which is then directly benefiting
detailed organisational/individual monitoring.
To ask some other questions may clarify:-
Do organisations make available their itemised telephone billing for public
use?
Do individuals?
If not,
Why do many organisations/individuals take a different approach with the
more detailed Internet History/Files?
If they do is the root cause a perceptual one?
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Trent
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Internet History
>
>
> Its really the case for an abused person that removing the
> material is the goal. A prosecution usually reinforces the
> abuse, and having their pictures as evidence in a court case
> makes their flesh crawl. We are not talking about porn stars
> here, but ordinary kids who were in the wrong place at the
> wrong time. It takes a very brave victim to be part of a
> prosecution. So it certainly is not vigilantism. It is also
> unwise, since the visiting of such sites is not easily
> defensible. We are digressing a little into the realms of
> sexual offences instead of data privacy.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Welton
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Internet History
>
> Roland Perry on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 1:48 PM said:-
>
> > They are not at all happy about vigilantes,
>
> I had not interpreted Tim's example as vigilantism, but as
> somebody trying to protect themselves and their information.
> Which construct would take precedence should a case arise
> would be interesting.
>
> But the broader point you make appears valid, as I understand
> an offence is the 'publication' and visiting the sites
> normally publishes all the material viewed on the hard drive
> of the PC being used; A pity for the innocent/niave visitor
> to the site.
>
> (I wonder if the interpretation of 'published' would change
> if the Temporary Internet Files/Internet History were only
> held in RAM - if it does, why is the transmission of such
> material not progressed?) :-)
>
> Ian W
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:48 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Internet History
> >
> >
> > In message
> > <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAUTW79peA1xG9uw
> > CAxwLTb8KAA
> > [log in to unmask]>,
> > Tim Trent <[log in to unmask]> writes
> > >I have a good friend who was abused as a child and
> > photographs of that
> > >abuse appear on the internet. Part of his time he spends
> trying to
> > >track those pictures down. This means that he visits sites
> > that would
> > >be considered by anyone not knowing why he goes there to
> be at best
> > >"Questionable".
> >
> > More than "Questionable", they are illegal (if he finds the
> sites he's
> > apparently looking for). Your friend is likely to have a very great
> > deal of explaining to do if his activities come to the attention of
> > law enforcement. They are not at all happy about vigilantes,
> > especially in that field, and tend to take the attitude
> that you are
> > guilty unless proven innocent (which is broadly speaking what the
> > recent Sexual Offences Act has to say, too).
> >
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#46
>
> "The defendant is not guilty if he proves..."
>
> (And will the court take the view that it is *necessary* for
> your friend to be doing the police's work for them?)
> --
> Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|