** Reply to note from "John Hanson GBSAFE00 SAFEWAY 2-4 Xtn 3179" <[log in to unmask]> Tue, 09 Mar 1999 06:31:36 EST
Hi John and everyone else,
> 'Leaping aboard the e-commerce virtual bandwagon, Marks &
> Spencer is launching a trial scheme to sell clothes to
> 80,000 BT staff and their families over BT's in-house
> intranet'. (DAILY MAIL)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My own opinion is that although "work address/telephone" are considered
> Personal Data, that's only because they have meaning outside work environs.
> If E-mail and IP addresses are not being opened up to wider Internet
> I don't see that the employee has any claim to misuse of Personal Data, nor a
> right to object.
>
> Of course if the advertising is selective in some way then there is cause for
> concern.
>
> The future of advertising ?
>
> comments/opinions invited ...
Hi,
I too feel there is a contradiction here. If addresses are not meant to
be publicly available then should they be passed at all to anyone else?
The argument I guess is that BT will take a share of the profits (if any)
generated by M&S, therefore the company finds it at its best interests
(and arguably its employees, some logical argument could be glued here,
along the lines of helping single mothers, staff on shifts, and some
discounting scheme) to purse its relationship with M&S.
You never know, maybe M&S is doing a pilot study before it too provides a
free internet service for its cardholders. Guess whose lines may be used
for the connection.
Nevertheless, I guess companiess have always mailed their staff about
particular offers. We for example ask them to use the University's
credit card run by a bank etc. Does it make it OK to send them paper
Junk mail? One possible question for the BT-M&S link is whether M&S was
given the addresses or BT did the mailshot? If the latter I guess it is
fine. Advertising on Intranet pages should not be a problem for Data
Protection as users details are not passed to a third party. (Wearing my
IT hat they can be passed on as server logs, user trails etc but ...)
Here is my particular problem following John's comments. I have asked
this list before if work EMail addresses are seen as private. The answer
was YES.
Now I have got approval to do for the University an External Email
directory. That would constitute new processing, therefore should come
under the 1998 Act. The guidance explicitly states (I think) that
consent for inclusion has to be explicit. This should apply to BT as
well :-) Under the previous act we had permission to allow people to
explicitly opt out from a such a directory but we never did one :).
In theory this means that I have to start with an empty directory and
hope I can persuade enough people to join. In practice I should start
with a full directory and say wait for eg. two months, for people to opt
out. If I obbey the law to the letter then we simply won't have a
directory. Do I have to go break the law to make something work?
Any thoughts pleeease?
Regards
Charles
BTW. In Universities, the argument goes, we are proud of our staff and
we want to tell the world that the work for us :-]
==============================================
Charles Christacopoulos, Secretary's Office, University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN, (Scotland) United Kingdom.
Tel: +44+(0)1382-344891. Fax: +44+(0)1382-201604.
WebDad of http://somis.ais.dundee.ac.uk/
Home of the Scottish Search Maestro http://somis2.ais.dundee.ac.uk/
Happily using OS2 Warp.
==============================================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|