Tim Trent wrote:
> Cavalry? Must be a different Tim :)
Yup.
>
> I think there is a point here of perception and reality, too.
>
> Charles, your email address Is not that of "an Individual Subscriber".
> Reality (stay with me here) says that anyone may spam the manure out of you
> to their hearts content, and that you have precious little redress (well,
> except for reporting to [eg] SpamCop, that is]
But (*yes but* say the argumentative types) ... we have argued endlessly
and inconclusively on this list that if email addresses can - together
with other data - identify a living individual then in my opinion
constitute personal data. And there are those who argue that an email
address is not sufficiently unique to identify a person etc etc.
Well, my email address is sufficiently unique and can even constitute
sensitive data :-)
>
> But we come to perception. You are an individual, and at *home* you are an
> "individual subscriber". You do not perceive that your rights as an
> individual change whether you are at home or at work. You perceive that you
> are receiving what are genuinely lawful commercial emails (let us disregard
> the missing opt out opportunity totally here) as spam. Unsolicited
> commercial electronic communications are what you see.
But am I receiving the email because once upon a time I was a data
protection officer or because my name has been picked from a list where
I subscribe for whatever reasons take my fancy, ie. personal reasons
because in my employment I no longer need to know (any more than any
other person) about DP?
Now if I was receiving the email at a generic address, I would not have
a case to argue under DP.
>
> Because you perceive the missives as spam the reputation of the sender
> plummets in your mind.
For those *commercial* participants on this list who never offer
anything much, but the occasional comment which runs along the lines "I
know much more than I am saying here, pay me to tell you", reputations
have already plummeted when they trade their goodies.
> And you at first resent and then react by deletion
> and then react by what we might call "A truly assertive act."
It is nice from time to time for small blokes (vertically challenged) to
stand on their keyboard and assert themselves.
Tee hee hee. :-)
>
> It doesn't matter whether Ibrahim's business is one that is highly ethical,
> or whether he is a purveyor of unmitigated tat. It doesn't even matter that
> he is, as I believe, an ISEB examiner in Data Protection. What matters is
> that you have a strong perception that he is spamming the manure out of you.
> I make no statement about whether he is or is not, nor do I make any comment
> about his business practices here. That is not my point, and I will keep my
> own counsel on that matter.
>
> What matters is that his reputation with you and those to whom you recommend
> the class of products and services he offers now have a highly different
> perception of him from the perception he intended or hoped for. And this
> has been achieved by his ignoring (or being perceived to be ignoring)
> Permission Based Marketing, either generally or in your particular
> circumstances. And, whatever the merits of your complaint or of his
> business, his ignoring or being perceived to be ignoring PBM has caused
> Ibrahim potentially untold reputation harm.
>
> He faces the same challenge I do as a provider of seminars and courses.
> "How do I make sure, especially when I sell items on Data Protection, that I
> am within the letter and the spirit of the law?" And the only answer is a
> correctly opted in database. Opted in for perception, not for reality.
>
> Again I want to emphasise that I am not making either positive or negative
> comments about him nor about his business nor his business practices. I am
> using this example you provide as an academic case study only.
>
I appreciate the above and I did not expect you or anyone else to make a
comment against (or in favour?) of a fellow professional.
Back to the email addresses though.
If externally to our employer, our addresses are fair game (as far as DP
is concerned) to receive marketing emails, why then doesn't the same
apply to the very same addresses within the employer's confines? That
is, correct me if I am wrong, the employer cannot send us marketing
emails without - at least - giving an option to opt out.
Regards
Charles
PS. Had there been on the spam a trustworthy address to unsubscribe
from or a legitimate website to do the same, I would in this instance,
and contrary to advise I/we give, had taken the option to unsubscribe
and that would have been it.
--
Charles Christacopoulos, Management Information Officer,
Planning & Information, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN,
Scotland, United Kingdom. Tel: 44(0)1382-344891. Fax: 44(0)1382-348845.
http://www.somis.dundee.ac.uk/ :: egothor http://www.egothor.org/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
