Comments on: A rose by any other name

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:43:43 +0000

Hi Doug. As far as I understand the process, because it was a scheduled review by the Commission(should actually have happened in 2002), it’s up to the Commission to judge whether amendments are required. I don’t think the EP has any official role in suggesting amendments if the legislation hasn’t been brought back before it. As to WP 29, they don’t have a statutory role in proposing amendments. But if amendments were proposed, i.e. if the directive was opened for amendments following a review, then the WP 29 would be required to give its opinion. Unofficially, I am sure they had plenty of input into the question of whether to amend the thing or not. Probably, like a lot of parties (with opposing interests) they surmised that opening it up would risk losing more than they might gain. There’s another review scheduled for 3-5 years time. But there are a couple of really sticky issues – the article on applicable law is one of them – that are very troublesome, unresolved, and won’t just go away if we all wait around for another few years. someone ought to do something…

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:21:06 +0000

I suppose you wouldn’t, and likewise permit posting details of, say, policemen’s addresses, families etc which have got people into jail in the US. Can you give any more details on this?

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:56:25 +0000

Can the European Parliament legislate on this topic? Or is it purely WP29 and/or the Commission that would have the right to originate legislation on the question? “There oughta be a law!!”

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:30 +0000

Dave, I’m not sure what you’re saying I would or wouldn’t agree with. But my post on obligations to publish people’s names, addresses and phone numbers in ICANN’s WHOIS database may offer some indication of my views. At issue here is the publication of someone’s name (perhaps first name only or even a pseudonym) and information about their interests. It’s not at all the same as publishing a policeman’s address. The data-set itself (e.g. hobbies versus phone numbers and addresses) is the distinguishing feature. The real problem probably unravels all the way back to the directive’s definition of personal data. It includes “any information relating to an identified or indentifiable person” and goes on to include any factors “specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity”. So, as I see it, there are two problems for bloggers. First, that ‘personal data’ is defined so broadly as to include a lot of the things we say about eachother. There’s nothing to be done abut that, although it’s a shame the original directive didn’t do more to distinguish between making an offhand comment about someone and publishing their mobile number for the world to see. Secondly, that the activity of blogging falls between two categories of derogation from the data protection obligations; domestic/personal activities, and journalistic/literary ones. Being neither fish nor fowl, we may be fall into the compliance net in a way that was surely never intended.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:26:41 +0000

So how would you differentiate between this “innocent” description of unconsulted third parties and the charmers from redwatch.com or noncewatch.com? I suppose you wouldn’t, and likewise permit posting details of, say, policemen’s addresses, families etc which have got people into jail in the US. In fact it seems that only the red & nonce watchers can freely post other people’s private details. I’d say allow the lot to be posted, but someone being genuinely stalked via this – perhaps someone who’s opposed to Scientology? – might have a case for the opposite.