Comments on: Sadistic pleasures on the Isle of Sodor. http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/ A jaundiced view of the mainstream media. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:49:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Viewscreens are coming | Anonymong http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-16644 Viewscreens are coming | Anonymong Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:06:27 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-16644 [...] a multi-pronged approach to the Internet, make sure that everyone is connected and then make sure they control what we do and see. It sounds fanciful I’ll admit but sadly it does rather add [...] [...] a multi-pronged approach to the Internet, make sure that everyone is connected and then make sure they control what we do and see. It sounds fanciful I’ll admit but sadly it does rather add [...]

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7656 sam Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:02:10 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7656 anna, i took some time to look at how these forums function, i still don't quite understand it other than that forums can be hacked pretty much the same way as personal computers can be by exploiting vulnerabilties through poor coding (called sql injection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) and that to me is a completely different problem than sns sites are supposed to pose. anna, i took some time to look at how these forums function, i still don’t quite understand it other than that forums can be hacked pretty much the same way as personal computers can be by exploiting vulnerabilties through poor coding (called sql injection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) and that to me is a completely different problem than sns sites are supposed to pose.

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7655 sam Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:53:00 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7655 saul of course, just couldn't think of a better was of describing the difference. saul of course, just couldn’t think of a better was of describing the difference.

]]> By: xxx http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7640 xxx Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:02:49 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7640 Perhaps contacting the Information Commissioner's Office would clarify exactly the points being disputed? Only a thought from someone who doesn't usually post here :) Perhaps contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office would clarify exactly the points being disputed?

Only a thought from someone who doesn’t usually post here :)

]]> By: Saul http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7623 Saul Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:09:53 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7623 A funny thing happened on the way from the forum..... sam...... oh i don A funny thing happened on the way from the forum…..

sam…… oh i don

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7621 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:56:19 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7621 Yes, Sam, I agree with you regarding usenet, and straightforward forums, but the PM facility adds in another layer, because people use it as though it was e-mail, and they forget that it is travelling via - not hotmail or google or another reputable company, but via the person who set up the forum, who is retaining a copy of it - and they don't even know who that person is, or understand that it is not just another anonymous version of e-mail. I keep saying it, its not the forum that is the problem, it is the personal information stored on some of these forums, that people don't understand is not safe. Yes, Sam, I agree with you regarding usenet, and straightforward forums, but the PM facility adds in another layer, because people use it as though it was e-mail, and they forget that it is travelling via – not hotmail or google or another reputable company, but via the person who set up the forum, who is retaining a copy of it – and they don’t even know who that person is, or understand that it is not just another anonymous version of e-mail. I keep saying it, its not the forum that is the problem, it is the personal information stored on some of these forums, that people don’t understand is not safe.

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7620 sam Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:32:07 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7620 forums are different than sns, we've already explained why, they have different objectives and from what i understand so far is that the sns sites have recived directives of how to behave concerning users safety, i don't have a a problem with that, their very make-up does pose a risk to naive users. your aguement with data protection i have difficulties with, not because it's neccessairly wrong but because of the way internet works. i said earlier i see forums as a bit of an extension or refinement of usenet and perhaps it is because of that that i fail to see the difficulties, for, anyone who posted to usenet would have left a trace, that is, would have been definable and findable through their post headings, all of which were automatically stored by the server and later by google and no-one would ever have thought to blame the individual usenet servers for not keeping such information secure or hidden, it was simply the way it worked and there was no way such could have been expected. sns servers are though differnt, they are not forums where people gather to discuss topics, they are, oh i don't know what to call them, a collection of self promotion html pages with chat (and css if you can hack it) ?, and, to create this collection much data is collected, deliberately harvested even, from individuals and stored. and that date needs protecting, and, also the users who use such sites need to be made aware of what they are letting themselves in for and what the dangers are in using such sites. forums are different than sns, we’ve already explained why, they have different objectives and from what i understand so far is that the sns sites have recived directives of how to behave concerning users safety, i don’t have a a problem with that, their very make-up does pose a risk to naive users. your aguement with data protection i have difficulties with, not because it’s neccessairly wrong but because of the way internet works.
i said earlier i see forums as a bit of an extension or refinement of usenet and perhaps it is because of that that i fail to see the difficulties, for, anyone who posted to usenet would have left a trace, that is, would have been definable and findable through their post headings, all of which were automatically stored by the server and later by google and no-one would ever have thought to blame the individual usenet servers for not keeping such information secure or hidden, it was simply the way it worked and there was no way such could have been expected.
sns servers are though differnt, they are not forums where people gather to discuss topics, they are, oh i don’t know what to call them, a collection of self promotion html pages with chat (and css if you can hack it) ?, and, to create this collection much data is collected, deliberately harvested even, from individuals and stored. and that date needs protecting, and, also the users who use such sites need to be made aware of what they are letting themselves in for and what the dangers are in using such sites.

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7619 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:52:32 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7619 John argument was slightly ridiculous in that he was trying to suggest that a 'a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people'. I have every reason to suspect that John comes from a forum that specifically excludes dissenting voices. Hence my comment. The definition of a forum is as follows. fo John argument was slightly ridiculous in that he was trying to suggest that a ‘a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people’.

I have every reason to suspect that John comes from a forum that specifically excludes dissenting voices. Hence my comment.

The definition of a forum is as follows.

fo

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7618 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:45:00 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7618 The Data Protection Act covers everybody who holds data on individuals. That means me, that means every web page, that means every forum. We all hold data. We know your e-mail address, we know your IP address. We have a duty under the law to keep that informations safe and not to give it to anyone without your permission - or a court order. Some forums know a great deal more than that about you, because they also host a database which contains all the private messages sent between members, in circumstances where they might not be so cautious in their thoughts. The point that John is so wilfully ignoring, as I suspect is his intention is that the report is not offering an opinion on a new law, it is defining who falls under the existing law. We all fall under the law as Data Processors, but those of us who are Data Controllers, face a stiffer penalty. Those forums who facilitate interaction between those whose data they hold - ie by providing a way in which members can contact each other 'out of sight' as it were, rather than just post as you are doing now, in the opinion of the Working Party, are Data Controllers, not just processors, and therefore the Working Party is making recommendations to them which would, if followed, enable them to steer clear of being caught by the stiffer penalties awarded to them if they are found to be Data Controllers and do not take care to protect the data which they hold. The Data Protection Act covers everybody who holds data on individuals. That means me, that means every web page, that means every forum. We all hold data. We know your e-mail address, we know your IP address. We have a duty under the law to keep that informations safe and not to give it to anyone without your permission – or a court order.

Some forums know a great deal more than that about you, because they also host a database which contains all the private messages sent between members, in circumstances where they might not be so cautious in their thoughts.

The point that John is so wilfully ignoring, as I suspect is his intention is that the report is not offering an opinion on a new law, it is defining who falls under the existing law. We all fall under the law as Data Processors, but those of us who are Data Controllers, face a stiffer penalty.

Those forums who facilitate interaction between those whose data they hold – ie by providing a way in which members can contact each other ‘out of sight’ as it were, rather than just post as you are doing now, in the opinion of the Working Party, are Data Controllers, not just processors, and therefore the Working Party is making recommendations to them which would, if followed, enable them to steer clear of being caught by the stiffer penalties awarded to them if they are found to be Data Controllers and do not take care to protect the data which they hold.

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7617 sam Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:36:59 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7617 'So, John, would you say that a ‘So, John, would you say that a

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7615 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:20:23 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7615 John, I think you must have been reading a different report. That report was not by the Rapporteurs, it was by the Working Party set up to oversee the mechanics of the Directive. They are not giving their opinion for the benefit of any future law, but as to whether a particular group of operations, fully defined as per my previous quote from page four of the full report, fall into the definitions covered by that existing directive. Their recommendations are not as to future law, but as to how groups which fall under the existing law can best comply with the law. Of course people do not have to follow their helpful recommendations as to how to comply with the law - but if they break the law, then the law is already there under which they will be punished. So, John, would you say that a 'forum' that seeks to exclude people who do not agree with other people on that forum, cannot, by your definition, be a forum? In which case, all your worries about whether forums are included or not are rather beside the point - those groups will merely be caught under the banner of 'SNS can broadly be defined as online communication platforms which enable individuals to join or create networks of<strong> like-minded users.</strong> In the legal sense, social networks are information society services, as defined in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC. John,

I think you must have been reading a different report. That report was not by the Rapporteurs, it was by the Working Party set up to oversee the mechanics of the Directive. They are not giving their opinion for the benefit of any future law, but as to whether a particular group of operations, fully defined as per my previous quote from page four of the full report, fall into the definitions covered by that existing directive. Their recommendations are not as to future law, but as to how groups which fall under the existing law can best comply with the law. Of course people do not have to follow their helpful recommendations as to how to comply with the law – but if they break the law, then the law is already there under which they will be punished.

So, John, would you say that a ‘forum’ that seeks to exclude people who do not agree with other people on that forum, cannot, by your definition, be a forum?

In which case, all your worries about whether forums are included or not are rather beside the point – those groups will merely be caught under the banner of ‘SNS can broadly be defined as online communication platforms which enable individuals to join or create networks of like-minded users. In the legal sense, social networks are information society services, as defined in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC.

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7614 sam Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:04:50 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7614 i have no idea who bill malcolm is ? oh hang on, just read up, you mean william (not that i'm any the wiser), why does william think forums are the same as social networking sites such as facebook ? i see forums as a more 'refined' version of usenet where people gather to discuss topics whereas sns are more there to promote individuals and are more like a collection of individual personal html pages collated by a single agency. i read the directive to mean the collator of such pages has a reponsibilty of protection towards it's users, i fail to see what that has to do with the users of forums or more the people who host such. i have no idea who bill malcolm is ? oh hang on, just read up, you mean william (not that i’m any the wiser), why does william think forums are the same as social networking sites such as facebook ? i see forums as a more ‘refined’ version of usenet where people gather to discuss topics whereas sns are more there to promote individuals and are more like a collection of individual personal html pages collated by a single agency. i read the directive to mean the collator of such pages has a reponsibilty of protection towards it’s users, i fail to see what that has to do with the users of forums or more the people who host such.

]]> By: Saul http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7613 Saul Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:51:54 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7613 Hmm, could explain my lack of funds. Hmm, could explain my lack of funds.

]]> By: John Blackmith http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7612 John Blackmith Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:42:44 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7612 Thank you for the response. You have not, of course, answered the two points I made: that the rapporteurs themselves describe their output as "recommendations". Neither in the UK nor anywhere else in the EU do such recommendations have the force of law. Much more importantly you have somehow managed to miss the point I made that a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people. That's me finished here and no doubt you will have your last word. I am rather surprised that you had not realised that these little Euro/bureauocrats were trying to be trendy and step on the "people at risk on Facebook type sites" bandwagon, not the forum scene. The latter is much too tied up with the question of free speech, including free speech on blogs, for the Crats to go anywhere near it. By all means stick to your guns. I am merely telling you why no action of any sort will be taken against any forums as a result of this stuff. As you will see. Thank you for the response. You have not, of course, answered the two points I made: that the rapporteurs themselves describe their output as “recommendations”. Neither in the UK nor anywhere else in the EU do such recommendations have the force of law.

Much more importantly you have somehow managed to miss the point I made that a forum CANNOT be included in the terms since, by definition, a forum is for NON-LIKE-MINDED people, not LIKE- MINDED people.

That’s me finished here and no doubt you will have your last word. I am rather surprised that you had not realised that these little Euro/bureauocrats were trying to be trendy and step on the “people at risk on Facebook type sites” bandwagon, not the forum scene. The latter is much too tied up with the question of free speech, including free speech on blogs, for the Crats to go anywhere near it.

By all means stick to your guns. I am merely telling you why no action of any sort will be taken against any forums as a result of this stuff. As you will see.

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7611 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:40:43 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7611 Didn't the Woolwich get swallowed up by Cheltenham and Gloucester or someone? Didn’t the Woolwich get swallowed up by Cheltenham and Gloucester or someone?

]]> By: Saul http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7609 Saul Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:14:55 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7609 I'm with the Woolw?ch. I’m with the Woolw?ch.

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7608 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:03:06 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7608 Me, I'm with Bill Malcom, he's the expert. Me, I’m with Bill Malcom, he’s the expert.

]]> By: sam http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7607 sam Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:34:25 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7607 anna, i'm with john on this one. anna, i’m with john on this one.

]]> By: Zak http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7606 Zak Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:38:42 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7606 John I wish you were right but it appears as if we have all been caught by the umbrella. John I wish you were right but it appears as if we have all been caught by the umbrella.

]]> By: Anna Raccoon http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/directive-9546ec-sadistic-pleasures-on-the-isle-of-sodor/#comment-7604 Anna Raccoon Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:57:45 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=3190#comment-7604 Blacksmith - I haven't gone 'outside the report' to find a definition - that definition is taken from the report. Perhaps you didn't read it in sufficient depth. Your original comment was that this opinion has the status of a white paper.....it is quite different. The law, Directive 95/46/EC, is already in place, it requires no further action on the part of UK legislators to enable European citizens, which includes UK citizens, to take advantage of its provisions. The opinion has been published to provide advice to SNS as to how they can comply with a law that is already in place. In doing so, it defines SNS' in the terms that I laid out in my previous answer. Your definition is a shortened version taken from the executive summary. Edited to add once more, it is not being a forum per se that is the problem, it is the fact that they are 'swapping' personal information which is by its nature, of passing via the board, that will include some forums within the definition. The fact that people may have differing views within a forum will not prevent them from being judged as 'like-minded' in that they were interested in the overall subject - for instance football, in the first place. Blacksmith – I haven’t gone ‘outside the report’ to find a definition – that definition is taken from the report. Perhaps you didn’t read it in sufficient depth.

Your original comment was that this opinion has the status of a white paper…..it is quite different. The law, Directive 95/46/EC, is already in place, it requires no further action on the part of UK legislators to enable European citizens, which includes UK citizens, to take advantage of its provisions.

The opinion has been published to provide advice to SNS as to how they can comply with a law that is already in place. In doing so, it defines SNS’ in the terms that I laid out in my previous answer.

Your definition is a shortened version taken from the executive summary.

Edited to add once more, it is not being a forum per se that is the problem, it is the fact that they are ‘swapping’ personal information which is by its nature, of passing via the board, that will include some forums within the definition.

The fact that people may have differing views within a forum will not prevent them from being judged as ‘like-minded’ in that they were interested in the overall subject – for instance football, in the first place.

]]>