Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz
Alexander, I swear I tell no lies on this.. Don't worry ok, we won and they gotta figure out a way to get back.. Conflict of law only means what it literally means but you must bring this up at the begiining of a court action not after. It may come under jurisdiction law because that's what you start the court with. After that you get years of adjournments and it never seems to end but... big but.. If Phorm use that then they could carry on with their scam in conflict of the ICO report.. I might be wrong here but they must have a reason to not lay down and die....
---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------
No no noooooooo... get real. its truly international here... tread carefully... Well anyways, we are prepared for it.. My advice is say little and trust you ICO ...
|
I wouldn't trust ICO to tie their own shoelaces. This is the "authority" who have completely failed the British public on more issues than I can even count. This is the "authority" who can't even interpret the laws they are supposed to enforce.
DPA clearly states that operations on personal data is defined as processing (it states so explicitly in the Act) yet the ICO don't seem to be able to grasp that purely by reading the data and passing it to the anonymiser or "special machine" the data is being processed and therefore requires consent.
Furthermore, the ICO issue a Public Statement giving Phorm the green light, which they then have to withdraw/ammend less than a week later because their forgot to do their job and read Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, a directive which falls directly under their remit to enforce.
Furthermore, ICO have the power (as specified by the EU and the Queen) to investigate -all- matters of privacy and data protection in the UK yet they feel it is appropriate to pass the buck with regards RIPA to the Home Office.
Trust ICO? I would trust Kent before I trust ICO.
Alexander Hanff