** Reply to note from [log in to unmask] Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:00:56 -0000
> You appear to be contradicting yourself here - on the one hand you say
> " the latest piece of legislation said that you must have express
> permission to put people in such a database/distribution list ... in
> which case no reply is not explicit opt in", which I agree is true. But
> you also say "....if they do not object I would go through with it".
> This is opt-out, not opt-in consent, and therefore does not comply with
> the new Regs.
Hi,
No I am not. :-)
You reversed the order of my sentences.
a. I would go through with it
b. (unless) [NB. I believe, and others will put me right on this, that the
latest piece of legislation said that you must have express permission
to put ...]
If second statement is true then first is false surely I can say that or should I
have used explicitlly *unless*.
================================
To get into the substance.
Now that Tim put loads of ICE on the idea (rightly so) would anyone like to
suggest to Clementine how she can break the happy news to the PR
department?
Remember bad news is the messenger's fault.
:-D
Charles
--
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
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
