In message <002601c5c7f9$2d75b4c0$0300a8c0@piii>, at 10:02:26 on Mon, 3 
Oct 2005, Paul Ticher <[log in to unmask]> writes

>I am still left with the practical problem of helping people to decide on
>the content of their fair processing notices and what kind of choice to
>offer their Data Subjects.  In many cases it makes a big difference whether
>by ticking the box people accept or prevent a particular outcome, because
>the 'don't care/don't mind' majority won't tick the box either way.  If it
>says "tick here to receive ..." the resulting list will be much smaller than
>if it says "tick here not to receive ...", for example.

Sure. And some of the more savvy people will draw conclusions about the 
ethics of the marketer, based on which has been chosen (and on web 
forms, whether or not the "tick" has been pre-selected for them). Think 
of it as another form of natural selection.

>Even if there is no
>logical difference between the two, it is a serious practical issue, for
>which a sensible, agreed terminology would be very helpful.

I agree that a terminology would be very useful, and I also agree that 
many people will use the expression "Opt Out" if the box says "tick here 
not to receive".

The Privacy Directive talks about "subscribers who have given their 
prior consent". (Automated calling machines, fax and email) {opt-in[tm]} 
and: "not allowed in respect of subscribers who do not wish to receive 
these communications" for post and telephone {opt-out[tm]}.

I suppose there's a problem with trying to produce one bit of advice for 
both classes of communication :-(

The issue at stake was whether a person who fails to tick a box that 
says "tick to not receive" is truly "giving consent".

TICO says no, unless it's the "soft opt-in" situation where your email 
has been gathered as a result of a previous contact with the company. 
Which is a bit daft because how often are you in the position of being 
asked to consent to being sent email by a company when you've not 
previously bought something, or "negotiated" with them over a potential 
sale?

<http://ico-cms.amaze.co.uk/DocumentUploads/New%20rules%20on%20email%20ma
rketing.pdf>

So, we seem to have:

Opt-in       - everyone agrees what this is.
Soft opt-in  - an opportunity to say "no thanks" individually to a
                company you have a relationship with; called opt-out in
                common parlance.
Opt-out      - always illegal (insufficient to show consent) when
                dealing with companies individually. Only applies to
                "bulk" transactions with TPS and MPS.

>However, on the question that started this thread, no one has come up with
>any recent or imminent change in the rules (whether legislative or in the
>Commissioner's approach), so I've concluded that my informants have
>misunderstood something.

The link from the previous page says "2 new rules":

http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=35

But that's new "from 11th Dec 2003".  Perhaps this is the cause of the 
confusion??
-- 
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
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
              [log in to unmask]
  (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^