On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 22:46, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> Now as to the niggling little "personal" details that might be attached
> to any of your posts (such as your name and your e-mail address and
> whatever sundry info you might put in your signature), well I think
> anyone who thinks they can use a privacy law to have that information
> protected is at least very naive, if not just plain insane.
Its very debatable as to whether there is any problem under the UK/EU
Data Protection legislation for this sort of thing. However its not
been tested in court, the hosting ISPs aren't interested in becoming
part of a test case, and its criminal not civil law (so the complainant
doesn't need to shell out costs, but does need to persuade the
appropriate authorities that its worth looking at - which is likely to
be the place where these things fail, except there are few cases being
bought and they may be bored or want to map out the limits of the law).
My action plan now is:-
- rehash the archives to blind out email addresses
good anti spam measure which has only not been done
because the current archiver is not capable.
- ensure that every current member and all new members get
informed explicitly that postings are publically archived,
how to avoid this, and that by posting you agree to the
exposure of your message
- to ensure that all posters have seen the above restrictions.
this means all non-member postings will be rejected - even
if you are a member under a different email address etc.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
