Roland Perry on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 3:29 PM said:-
> 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?
> It's the pre-trial publicity which is just as much a killer :-(
Also akin to the copyright issues then.
> Similarly the police & IWF might be able to
> argue "good reason", but a vigilante not.
Excuse my ignorance. IWF?
> CP-licence;
Also CP-licence?
> 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.
Is that assumption correct?
If it is how will the lack of civil action affect the DPA and other legal
rights of redress?
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?
Will subject access rights be affected?
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. If
so the resultant situation seems bound to leave a majority of people
vulnerable a majority of the time; Unless there were astronomical investment
into the investigative and prosecution services - leading to a big brother
type policing of the internet situation.
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. (Whilst I do not believe the word privacy in this context
is correctly used it does suffice.)
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 3:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Internet History
>
>
> In message <000301c3f173$cf8922f0$3ab068d5@ntlworld>, Ian
> Welton <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >I had not interpreted Tim's example as vigilantism, but as somebody
> >trying to protect themselves and their information.
>
> Roaming around looking for crimes being committed (in this
> case, people publishing illegal pictures) is very much
> regarded as vigilantism. Irrespective of who the pictures are
> of. It's quite different to happening by chance upon a crime
> in progress, and then involving the police. And it's not
> considered right to use an illegal method (cf. glass on top
> of a wall) to prevent crime, however much you don't want to
> be burgled.
>
> >Which construct would take
> >precedence should a case arise would be interesting.
>
> It's the pre-trial publicity which is just as much a killer :-(
>
> >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.
>
> No. The original child porn offence was distribution (aka
> publication) of pictures, or possession with a view
> distribution. [And also advertising that you distribute].
> Private collections, for example, were OK.
>
> It was amended a long time ago to include simple possession,
> but with "innocence" and "good reason" defences. So a
> collection on your hard disk would be unlikely to escape
> prosecution, but a couple of old fragments in your browser
> cache might. Similarly the police & IWF might be able to
> argue "good reason", but a vigilante not.
>
> But then the law changed again, mainly as a result of
> caselaw, so that a different offence of "making" pictures
> (which has no defence at all) could be applied to *any* act
> of electronic viewing or copying [and not just the original
> act of creation].
>
> The lack of prosecutions against IWF etc over the last few
> years has been merely because the CPS has deemed it not in
> the public interest (rather than because there's a defence or
> exception).
>
> Hence the recent campaign to get some sort of proper defence
> for "making", which has turned out the way I quoted earlier
> (SOA s46). Previous drafts of the law would have given
> defences only to (in effect) those with a CP-licence; but the
> magnitude of the task of issuing these to police and (eg) ISP
> abuse departments, while avoiding issuing them to vigilantes,
> meant it was finally dismissed as unworkable.
>
> 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).
>
> --
> 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)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|