Forum Names

Page 4 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Hi Clive just got in from a mornings shopping and have just read your reply.

On your first point, I was not accusing you of running fowl of the law merely that pc magazine should not have given you any information without a court order as pc magazine would be them running fowl of the law and not you. Can you imagine if I rang up your bank and asked for account details and they gave it to me without question.

On your second point, I am afraid you are quite wrong, it is not simply enough to show data to get access to institutional records, the law is very strong on protecting the individual in this country. Imagine if I went to court with a letter saying you gave me complete access to your bank account and able to do what i wish with the contents. Do you think the court would grant access on that basis.

Your third point. I do not know Matthew from you, just who is he and what qualifies him?

On your fourth and final point. I have read quite a few of your postings and to be frank I find you very opinionated to the point where you always have to be right, I therefore wanted others to feel safe in answering my question without fear of intimidation from you. Intimidation I find very boorish.

I hope I haven't upset you with my reply to your fourth point.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not - i have long since become immune to what is said on this Forum. But I thank you for your comment. I really am a "nice guy" really.

As regards the obtaining of information - you are quite right. But that is never what we have sought. What we are obtaing is the "audit trail". The offending information is already on record.

We just wanted to identify where it came from nothing else. That is why I referred you to Mathew as his post explains this.

Your example is a good one but what I am dealing with is somewhat different. I do not want the content of the "Bank Statement". I want the address of that branch of the "bank" from where the statement was sent.

May I suggest that we all (myself included) take a break from voicing opinions on what others have or have not said?
 
C

Caroline3

Mar 14, 2005
134
0
0
Visit site
I have watched this thread with utter disbelief and dismay! can you please all get over this tit for tat and grow up! It's a bit sad when grown men and women have nothing better to do than argue over something like this. I have just read on another thread of a couple who have just had their caravan stolen four days before their much looked forward to and hard earned trip to France- now thats something to worry about and more to do with caravanning - we should be using the legal profession to catch the scum bags that steal caravans not on some ego trip!!
 
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Deborah - I run my own business and am registerred with the Information Commissioner Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF as per the regulations governing the Data Protection Act 1998.

I work with this act every day and believe you are mistaken in that for me to run fowl of it in this case, somebody would need to complain.

If a complaint is logged then all I have to do is to provide the data we have on file to show just cause as to the actions we have taken.

As for the timescale - you were correct but presumably things move a little faster now. See Mathews Post 30th July 2005 11:52 am.

Finaly I would not dream of answering a question not directly aimed at me. I am far too much of a gentleman to do so.

I will put you last paragraph down as a one off aberation in that it seems somewhat out of context given the sensible nature of your first. I have never called anybody names on this Forum or criticised their opinions. Yet here you are, someone I do not know stating that I "berate" people and that I have a "boorish attitude".

Yawn!!
Click to expand...
just realised put this in the wrong place earlier⇨

Absolutely not - i have long since become immune to what is said on this Forum. But I thank you for your comment. I really am a "nice guy" really.

As regards the obtaining of information - you are quite right. But that is never what we have sought. What we are obtaing is the "audit trail". The offending information is already on record.

We just wanted to identify where it came from nothing else. That is why I referred you to Mathew as his post explains this.

Your example is a good one but what I am dealing with is somewhat different. I do not want the content of the "Bank Statement". I want the address of that branch of the "bank" from where the statement was sent.

May I suggest that we all (myself included) take a break from voicing opinions on what others have or have not said?
 
D

Deborah_5075490

Aug 1, 2005
21
0
0
Visit site
just realised put this in the wrong place earlier⇨

Absolutely not - i have long since become immune to what is said on this Forum. But I thank you for your comment. I really am a "nice guy" really.

As regards the obtaining of information - you are quite right. But that is never what we have sought. What we are obtaing is the "audit trail". The offending information is already on record.

We just wanted to identify where it came from nothing else. That is why I referred you to Mathew as his post explains this.

Your example is a good one but what I am dealing with is somewhat different. I do not want the content of the "Bank Statement". I want the address of that branch of the "bank" from where the statement was sent.

May I suggest that we all (myself included) take a break from voicing opinions on what others have or have not said?
Click to expand...
Clive I was most intrigued by your "audit trail" as it brings into question the laws of data protection and freedom of information which in a previous life I had much to do with. These laws would be worthless if it is simple to "audit trail' someone, so last night I eventually got to speak to a colleague at the firm I used to work at. She said that it is possible to "audit trail" but only from the recipients computer, which in this case she said would be pc's server and that she herself could not allow a member of the public access to her servers to load up software to "audit trail" not without being forced to without a court order and anyhow she would not be able to do that because of the two laws I have already mentioned. However she did say that it is every network managers fear of someone hacking into the servers, as an audit trail could be done this way.

I have to ask you this Clive. You yourself have stated that you have not been to court to acquire a court order, have you employed someone such as a Matthew to hack into the pc servers? If you have, you may have committed a criminal act. I would be grateful if you would clarify your actions. I would not like to think that the work that has gone into the data protection and especially the freedom of information act is being made a mockery of.
 
D

Deborah_5075490

Aug 1, 2005
21
0
0
Visit site
Clive I posted this question in the comments section of our dicussion about legality but I think you might have missed it so I am posting it again in the main topic. My apologies to other forum users.

Clive I was most intrigued by your "audit trail" as it brings into question the laws of data protection and freedom of information which in a previous life I had much to do with. These laws would be worthless if it is simple to "audit trail' someone, so last night I eventually got to speak to a colleague at the firm I used to work at. She said that it is possible to "audit trail" but only from the recipients computer, which in this case she said would be pc's server and that she herself as a network manager could not allow a member of the public access to her servers to load up software to "audit trail" not without being forced to without a court order and anyhow in my opinion she would not be able to do that because of the two laws I have already mentioned. However she did say that it is every network managers fear of someone hacking into the servers, as an audit trail could be done this way.

I have to ask you this Clive. You yourself have stated that you have not been to court to acquire a court order, have you employed someone such as a Matthew to hack into the pc servers? If you have, you may have committed a criminal act. I would be grateful if you would clarify your actions. I would not like to think that the work that has gone into the data protection and especially the freedom of information act is being made a mockery of.
 
M

Matthew_5040954

Mar 14, 2005
133
0
0
Visit site
Deborah I hope you are not suggesting I'm involved in anything illegal, the reason why you are able to trace people on the internet was given in your reply and does not break any laws especially the data protection act.

As regards the freedom of information act, this has nothing to do with preventing access to information, but has everything to do with giving people rights to information.
 
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Deborah - I see what you are saying and it is interesting but you have rather got the wrong end of the stick. I have to be careful what I say as we have signed a non-disclosure agreement. However, I can suggest that some of your questions are answered right in front of you just two clicks away.

May I suggest that you have a look at www,informationcommissioner.gov.uk - in particular "Durant vs. FSA" (you can do a search to find this) Here you will find that Lord Justices Auld, Mummary & Buxton in Dec 03 drove a wedge in what we had all thought was a pretty good and robust piece of legislation in that they ruled that where an organisation had a badly organised manual filing system that the Data Protection Act need not apply.

Thus in this specific case where Mr Durant felt badly let down by the Financial Services Authority (a government agency) he was successfully blocked from obtaining his own files because the FSA's filling system was not up to scratch!!

If anybody needed further proof that the law is an ass then this is it. However the Law Lords saw fit to clarify what information can be obtained from computerised filing systems. This is why most website that you subscribe to require you to agree to and sign to that effect their Privacy Policy. Hint!

On a generic point, we have been dealing with this problem for some time now in that my firm represents several clients claiming "misselling" and we have been frustrated in that the Life Office concerned has quoted Durant vs. the FSA as a reason for not providing the information so that full details can be assessed by the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service), pleading that there manual filing system is not up to selecting the specific information required. This is of course a load of spherical objects.

However, getting back to your point, where as in my case against my accuser on this Forum, the audit trail is all on computer and easily accessible. In any event, as I have said before, your concerns would be correct if I was seeking to obtain information about an individual but I am not - just the address. All we have done is to use the equivalent of the BT 1471 service.

If you are interested in the broader issue that concerns my clients raised here , the Information Commissioner wrote to us on the 25th July and stating:-

"Whilst the Judge in the Appeal Court case Durant Vs the FSA made general comments concerning the circumstances and purposes for which the Data Protection Act was perhaps intended, the Act does not require individuals to explain the reasons for which they require a copy of their personal data.

We have formed the view, therefore, that it is unlikely that the processing concerned has been or is being carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Act.

I shall now inform the data controller (of the Life Office) of our view and provide them with the opportunity to respond. I shall ask the data controller to respond within 28 days"

So I hope to have some happy clients in 28 days time and a happy bank manager when our fees are paid!
 
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Deborah I hope you are not suggesting I'm involved in anything illegal, the reason why you are able to trace people on the internet was given in your reply and does not break any laws especially the data protection act.

As regards the freedom of information act, this has nothing to do with preventing access to information, but has everything to do with giving people rights to information.
Click to expand...
Spot on Mathew - and thank you
 
D

Deborah_5075490

Aug 1, 2005
21
0
0
Visit site
Clive, thank you for replying it was most interesting reading. But you have still not answered my question. I have again this morning spoken to an ex- colleague at the firm I used to work at and she said it is not possible for a "BT 1471' over a computer network, not without the use of the recipients computer as i have stated in my last posting. So I must repeat my question have you hacked into the pc server?

Regarding other points you have made in your rather long reply.

I am a bit bemused about the statement "we have signed a nondisclosure agreement." Who is the "we" and why have you signed such an agreement regarding a civil suit?

Regarding the data and freedom act you have stated that "the Act does not require individuals to explain the reasons for which they require a copy of their personal data." and you are quite correct, but may I point out the wording refers to "their own personal data" and not that of any one else.

So I will ask you this again have you hacked the pc servers?
 
D

Deborah_5075490

Aug 1, 2005
21
0
0
Visit site
Deborah I hope you are not suggesting I'm involved in anything illegal, the reason why you are able to trace people on the internet was given in your reply and does not break any laws especially the data protection act.

As regards the freedom of information act, this has nothing to do with preventing access to information, but has everything to do with giving people rights to information.
Click to expand...
Matthew, you are quite wrong about the Freedom of information act, it is not a law which gives access to any information that a person feels like but is actually to protect people. How would you feel if your next door neighbour went to the police and asked them if you had a criminal record and they gave this information freely, which is what I think you are suggesting. I don't suppose you would be very happy about this?

I was not suggesting that you had done anything illegal merely that as you were offering your services to Clive you may have been involved. My sincerest apologies to you.
 
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Deborah Once again the answer is no. Mathew has answerred this point and I concur.

It is not my fault if you insist on getting spurious information.

May I suggest that you take the tiome to fully research the subject before you start suggesting wrong doing on the part of others. I have given you more than enough "hints" for you to find the basics yourself.

Stop being obtuse and get the facts together yourself.
 
C

CliveV

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Clive, thank you for replying it was most interesting reading. But you have still not answered my question. I have again this morning spoken to an ex- colleague at the firm I used to work at and she said it is not possible for a "BT 1471' over a computer network, not without the use of the recipients computer as i have stated in my last posting. So I must repeat my question have you hacked into the pc server?

Regarding other points you have made in your rather long reply.

I am a bit bemused about the statement "we have signed a nondisclosure agreement." Who is the "we" and why have you signed such an agreement regarding a civil suit?

Regarding the data and freedom act you have stated that "the Act does not require individuals to explain the reasons for which they require a copy of their personal data." and you are quite correct, but may I point out the wording refers to "their own personal data" and not that of any one else.

So I will ask you this again have you hacked the pc servers?
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed a point or to be more accurate - you have Deborah.

I am not sure now many ways I can say this before it sinks in?

I did not require personal data - just the address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom