2 defaults Egg and Vodaphone - Default hell!!

[Guest willowb]

pml...!!!!!!!!!

 

Afternoon you lot:)

 

Wxx

[Number6]

God afternoon Willow and elsinore.

 

Pete

[Tinkerbelle]

Lol..

[lookinforinfo]

I thought I had already responded, but it appears to have got lost in

transmission.

First Willow, I wasn'r shouting. But I am sorry that I did not notice that I had repeated the second part of clause 6-I had just held the copy key down for too long.

But since my last post there doesn't seem to be any counter argument apart from Willow saying "they are not covered by clause 6" without saying why.

[Guest willowb]

First Willow, I wasn'r shouting.

 

But since my last post there doesn't seem to be any counter argument apart from Willow saying "they are not covered by clause 6" without saying why.

I didn't say you were! I was just asking for patience as I am in no way as informed as you are! but I am trying my best to be:)

 

As for backing up what I said, I'll work on it tonight over a glass of shiraz! care to join me?

 

Wxx

[dayglo]

if you issue a notice under section 10 to a data controller telling them to cease processing your data then they can only refuse to comply if any of paragraphs 1-4 of schedule 2 are in place - NOT paragraph 6.

 

So - anyone can claim to process personal data if they have a legitimate use etc... BUT if you tell them to stop under S.10 - they have to find a reason in paras. 1-4 to continue.

[veryannoyed]

Read my thoughts on this here - if my technicality can be successfully argued, then CRAs are dead

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/47930-could-suitable-template-default.html

[lookinforinfo]

Dayglo, Ithink you will find the situation is the opposite of your claim.

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order

[Tinkerbelle]

Dayglo, Ithink you will find the situation is the opposite of your claim.

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order

 

How is it the opposite?

[dayglo]

Lookinforinfo I disagree.

 

S.10 (1) "the right to tell a data controller to stop processing my data" DOES NOT apply in any case where paras. 1-4 of schedule 2 are met.

 

i.e. I can't stop them processing my data if 1) they have my consent 2) a contract is in place 3) there is a legal neccessity 4) it's in the interests of the data subject.

 

But if only paras. 5 or 6 are met (if none of paras 1-6 are met then they shouldn't be processing data period!) then S.10(1) DOES apply and you can write to the data controller accordingly.

 

So - If a data controller can show any 1 of the first 4 paragraphs of schedule 2 are met - he can tell me to stick my S.10 notice where the sun doesn't shine.

 

If however, as is the case in my case against vodafone, they claim exemption from a S.10 notice under paragraph 6 (which is not allowed) their exemption is not Valid.

 

How is that the opposite of what I said above?

[Tinkerbelle]

In addition to what Dayglo has said above, below does not apply either unless you know of any orders made by the Secretary of State!??

 

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order

[dayglo]

evenin' m'aam.

 

I was kinda takin' that one as red!

[lookinforinfo]

My original post on this thread related to the use of our data by a CRA after we have

terminated an agreement with a bank, say, but they have left a default on our record.

So clauses 1-4 do not apply

[dayglo]

That's right. (unless you signed some Ts & Cs allowing processing inperpetuity or similar)

 

So if 1-4 do not apply, the data controller cannot claim exemption from a notice issued under section 10 by 6 to cease processing data by citing para 6.

 

You said that the situation was the opposite to the one I had described. I don't think it is.

[lookinforinfo]

In addition to what Dayglo has said above, below does not apply either unless you know of any orders made by the Secretary of State!??

 

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order

 

 

Information Commissioners Office legal guidelines to the Data Protection Act has this to say in response-

 

"The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied. No order has been made to date".

[dayglo]

Information Commissioners Office legal guidelines to the Data Protection Act has this to say in response-

 

"The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied. No order has been made to date".

 

That's why I said it could be taken as red. I was the test case that brought the complaint to the ICO in the summer - the first issue of that letter from the ICO was sent to me! I now have several copies of it!

 

I'm afraid you've started to lose me a little bit....

 

You originaly said "I think you'll find the situation is the opposite of your claim"

 

Do you still think this? If so, can you show me?

 

remember S.10(1) gives the Data Subject the right to stop a data controller from processing his or her data not the rights of a data controller to process data.

[lookinforinfo]

I am not claiming that Dayglo.I am claiming that clause 6 appears to give

CRAs the ability to process data even when a contract with a data subject

and a bank for instance, no longer exists.

[Guest willowb]

They may do but if they are not receiving that data in the first place from the data controllers (banks) then there would not be a problem.

 

CRAs say.....'whoooooooaa not our problem! we just get told what to process every month from whoever you had dealings with' so the move is to stop the data controller from passing the data subject's data onto the data processor by way of quoting.....well, all that stuff Dayglo said:D

 

Wxx

 

I'm having a glass anyway!

[dayglo]

I am not claiming that Dayglo.I am claiming that clause 6 appears to give

CRAs the ability to process data even when a contract with a data subject

and a bank for instance, no longer exists.

 

You are quite correct - it does.

 

I still don't understand why you said "I think you'll find the situation is the opposite to your claim"

[dayglo]

your new image really has grown on me willow - your old one was scary!

[lookinforinfo]

Well Willow, I don't believe that CRAs can always hide behind the excuse

"we were only acting under orders" or words to that effect. As data

controllers in their own right, CRAS have a responsibility not to process

data that is wrong. And while they may be reliant on others to supply them

with data that is accurate, they are subject to the laws of defamation for

example when, and probably only when, they are informed that data is wrong, and refer the complainant back to the their client, but do not remove the

offending article in the meantime.

[Guest willowb]

Awwwww cheers Dayglo! well, that's what I thought! the old one was funny but not really me........I thought I may frighten the newbies in the meet and greet section:o lol

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

No!!!! they claim to be data processors not controllers.

 

Wxx

[dayglo]

just one question though.... what's makin the ol' boobies glow?

[Guest willowb]

........and they're not old! ....AND stop lookin' :x

 

lol

Wxx