In message <000801c3f1aa$47df0b80$4ab068d5@ntlworld>, Ian Welton
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>> Roaming around looking for crimes being committed (in this
>> case, people publishing illegal pictures)
>
>Would using that concept mean that the roaming around by copyright and
>software organisations (Some of which are single owner organisations) would
>be deemed to be vigilantism?
>Or is that dealt with differently?
Copyright's mainly a civil infringement, not a crime. So you aren't
substituting for the work the police were set up to do.
>> Similarly the police & IWF might be able to
>> argue "good reason", but a vigilante not.
>
>Excuse my ignorance. IWF?
Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk
>> CP-licence;
>
>Also CP-licence?
Child Porn Licence (to be allowed to deal in CP for law enforcement
purposes). They were actually going to be called authorisations, but
never came to pass.
>> As a final twist, there's a Home Office Code of Practice in
>> development which will be used as the main yardstick against
>> which claims of proof of being necessary under s46 will be
>> measured. And that won't include activity by members of the
>> public I'm afraid! (however well-meaning).
>
>I assume that civil action by injured parties will be ruled out by the CoP,
>as obtaining indications of offence or evidence against them would seem to
>be ruled out.
I've never heard about people taking civil action against Child Porn
distributors (because they are difficult to trace and likely to be
overseas). But someone wanted to, they'd have to employ agents who
operated under the CoP, or at least its spirit. I doubt it has much to
say about this aspect, though, so it could be difficult.
>If it is how will the lack of civil action affect the DPA and other legal
>rights of redress?
Again, I'm not aware of people using DPA in this context (although it's
arguably just as much a DPA issue as any other unauthorised publication
of photographs [as personal data]).
It's a good question whether there are any government sponsored
compensation schemes for victims. I know the police (and the National
Crime Squad in particular) are very keen to trace the victims, as well
as the rather simpler task of locking up the UK-resident pornographers.
>If it is not, how will individuals be able to obtain evidence for civil
>actions?
>
>If an individual is advised their data is on a site, would they commit an
>offence by visiting the site to deny/confirm that information prior to
>making an official complaint?
Yes, because of the unique nature of the material, being illegal to
possess.
>Will subject access rights be affected?
Very few of the sites are likely to be within DPA jurisdiction. And even
if they were, do criminals often respond to SARs from the general
public?
>I may be being unkind here, but it sounds like a 'close your eyes and trust
>the authorities to look after you all of the time' type of approach, when
>clearly the authorities have been having just as difficult and largely
>ineffective a time in dealing with many internet matters as individuals.
Many crimes are difficult to investigate and prosecute. But there's
nevertheless a very strong tendency to discourage lynch mobs.
>My original questioning, which was intending to assist in identifying how
>individual privacy is transposed into organisational privacy and why
>dissimilarities exist, seems to have been moved to a national culture
>conceptual level.
The police have certain rights that the public don't. Exceed the speed
limit, search, arrest, and so on, carry guns in limited circumstances,
and carry offensive weapons routinely. One of these rights is to be in
possession of otherwise illegal material like drugs [1] and Child Porn,
as long as it's part of an investigation.
The public can keep their eyes open and report things, and probably
won't be nicked [2]. That's rather different to lurking around in pub
lavatories playing amateur-Miami-vice just because you want to clean
them up and don't think the police are coping.
[1] Between discovering them and handing them it at the police station,
and as evidence afterwards.
[2] Just as they probably wouldn't be prosecuted for possession if they
found some drugs in the street and handed them in right away.
--
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|