Hi Tom, Happy to help with any editing as well. I'm employed as a web editor and have some experience writing training materials as well as other content!
Yours, Corinne 2009/2/20 <[email protected]> > Send developers-public mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of developers-public digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. data protection and overseas storage (Seb Bacon) > 2. Re: data protection and overseas storage (Matthew Somerville) > 3. Re: Translations for foi project already ongoing? > (Michael Bimmler) > 4. Volunteer editor? (Tom Steinberg) > 5. Re: Volunteer editor? (Tony Scott) > 6. Re: Volunteer editor? (Matt Wardman) > 7. Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2009: London, 28th March > 2009 (Jonathan Gray) > 8. Internet Blackout & The Convention of Modern Liberty (Ed Kelly) > 9. Re: Internet Blackout & The Convention of Modern Liberty > (Francis Davey) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seb Bacon <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety:Public" <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:51:48 +0000 > Subject: [mySociety:public] data protection and overseas storage > Hi all, > > I asserted recently on a different mailing list that legally (under > data protection provisions) it seems safe to use Google Docs for > storing personal data, as they are signed up to the Safe Habor > agreement. You might have a view on if that adequately protects > privacy, but aside from that, it looks to me like people probably > can't sue you for storing their data on Google Docs, if you're > following the ICO's own advice (http://is.gd/jwMW) > > But someone responded, "There are several court cases in progres where > invividuals are suing companies for storing their data on google, > yahoo etc.. Even the microsoft safe harbour statement isn't clear. The > big isue is that the various patriot acts over-ride any safe harbour > statement meaning the us gov can get any of the data. Technicaly > breaching the dpa." > > As Google Docs is used a fair bit here to bandy about data, does > anyone else have any views on this? (I couldn't find any such court > cases, incidentally). > > Thanks, > > Seb > > -- > skype: seb.bacon > mobile: 07790 939224 > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Matthew Somerville <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" < > [email protected]> > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:49:40 +0000 > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] data protection and overseas storage > Seb Bacon wrote: > >> I asserted recently on a different mailing list that legally (under >> data protection provisions) it seems safe to use Google Docs for >> storing personal data, as they are signed up to the Safe Habor >> agreement. You might have a view on if that adequately protects >> privacy, but aside from that, it looks to me like people probably >> can't sue you for storing their data on Google Docs, if you're >> following the ICO's own advice (http://is.gd/jwMW) >> > > The biggest point there (linked from that page, general compliance advice) > being that you had to get consent from the user that their data could be so > transferred. If you did not get that consent, then I'm not sure. > > But someone responded, "There are several court cases in progres where >> invividuals are suing companies for storing their data on google, >> yahoo etc.. Even the microsoft safe harbour statement isn't clear. The >> big isue is that the various patriot acts over-ride any safe harbour >> statement meaning the us gov can get any of the data. Technicaly >> breaching the dpa." >> >> As Google Docs is used a fair bit here to bandy about data, does >> anyone else have any views on this? >> > > Vaguely different issue there, about the government. The Safe Harbor > principles - http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/sh_en_privacy1.asp - are > about keeping your data safe, and being clear what could happen to it. Here > is Google's privacy policy on sharing personal data: > > "Google only shares personal information with other companies or > individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances: [...] > We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of > such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, > regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce > applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations > thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or > technical issues, or (d) protect against imminent harm to the rights, > property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or > permitted by law." > > So if an "enforceable governmental request" came in, or if "any applicable > law" or "legal process" was used by an individual - and I have no idea > whether there is such a law that individuals could use, that's not the point > - then you have been informed that your data could be handed over. I don't > see that as a breach of the DPA, which has a clear exemption (section 35) > for disclosures "required by law or made in connection with legal > proceedings etc." - so the same principle would presumably apply if Google > were hosted in the UK. I guess the difference is that it's a different > government theoretically gaining access to the data - but as I said above, > you should have gained consent from the user first. > > ATB, > Matthew > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Bimmler <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety:Public" <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:30:59 +0100 > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Translations for foi project already > ongoing? > I'm chiming in here, as I'm living in Switzerland as well and have > been using the Swiss version of FOI legislation a couple of times. > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Francis Irving <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Finally a couple more questions and points ... > > > > Do Swiss public authorities answer FOI requests reliably by email? > > This is an interesting point and it can't be answered in a general > manner. I have experienced the following: > > If you send a request via email or web form (some of the web forms > require you to supply a postal address), the authority will > acknowledge your request by email. > > If access is granted, you will receive the document requested by > email, especially if you asked for this in your original request. > If the authority issues the equivalent of a Refusal Notice *and* you > have supplied your postal address in your request, you will nearly > inevitably receive the Refusal Notice as letter, and often even as > Certified Letter. > If you did not supply a postal address (which you usually won't in a > WDTK-like system), they will email the Refusal Notice as PDF > attachment to an email. > > Swiss authorities, especially the more "central" ones (ministries, > that is) are usually very comfortable with email as medium of > communication. Therefore, I think this really shouldn't be a problem. > > What needs to be noted, though, is that the Swiss FOI law only applies > to federal (ie. national) authorities. Other than in the UK, it does > NOT apply to cantonal and local authorities (including most > universities, as only two universities are run on the national level). > Some cantons have their own FOI laws, most of which also apply on the > third, i.e. municipal level in these cantons and all of them are > different from each other and the federal version... This would need > ot be considered in the localisation. > > I can't help with the coding part but, as I already told hernani some > time ago on a Swiss mailinglist, I will be glad to help with creating > and adjusting templates, help documentation, authorities lists etc. > > Regards, > Michael > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety:Public" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:20:47 +0000 > Subject: [mySociety:public] Volunteer editor? > Hi All, > > Our volunteer Jeanette has written some draft materials to send out to > journalism lectureres. It's to help them explain to their students how > to use some of our sites like WhatDoTheyKnow. > > I'm not a professional editor, and we could really do with someone > with good skills in that department to really polish these docs: after > all the people they're going to are going to have a fine eye for good > copy! > > Would anyone be willing to put in a couple of hours editing work to > make these ready for mailing? > > best, > > Tom > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tony Scott <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" < > [email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:24:09 +0000 (GMT) > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Volunteer editor? > > Tom > > I've got some subediting experience, and would be glad to give the docs the > full force of my virtual red pen... > > Cheers > > Tony > > > ---- > Tony Scott > http://tonyscott.org.uk > http://twitter.com/tonys > http://uk.wordcamp.org > http://extropy.co.uk > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> > > To: mySociety:Public <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009 12:20:47 > > Subject: [mySociety:public] Volunteer editor? > > > > Hi All, > > > > Our volunteer Jeanette has written some draft materials to send out to > > journalism lectureres. It's to help them explain to their students how > > to use some of our sites like WhatDoTheyKnow. > > > > I'm not a professional editor, and we could really do with someone > > with good skills in that department to really polish these docs: after > > all the people they're going to are going to have a fine eye for good > > copy! > > > > Would anyone be willing to put in a couple of hours editing work to > > make these ready for mailing? > > > > best, > > > > Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list [email protected] > > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Matt Wardman <[email protected]> > To: Tony Scott <[email protected]>, "mySociety public, general > purpose discussion list" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:20:51 +0000 > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Volunteer editor? > I'll have a look too. > > Matt > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Tony Scott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Tom > > > > I've got some subediting experience, and would be glad to give the docs > the full force of my virtual red pen... > > > > Cheers > > > > Tony > > > > > > ---- > > Tony Scott > > http://tonyscott.org.uk > > http://twitter.com/tonys > > http://uk.wordcamp.org > > http://extropy.co.uk > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> > >> To: mySociety:Public <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009 12:20:47 > >> Subject: [mySociety:public] Volunteer editor? > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Our volunteer Jeanette has written some draft materials to send out to > >> journalism lectureres. It's to help them explain to their students how > >> to use some of our sites like WhatDoTheyKnow. > >> > >> I'm not a professional editor, and we could really do with someone > >> with good skills in that department to really polish these docs: after > >> all the people they're going to are going to have a fine eye for good > >> copy! > >> > >> Would anyone be willing to put in a couple of hours editing work to > >> make these ready for mailing? > >> > >> best, > >> > >> Tom > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing list [email protected] > >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > >> > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list [email protected] > > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jonathan Gray <[email protected]> > To: mysociety-public <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:50:12 +0000 > Subject: [mySociety:public] Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2009: London, > 28th March 2009 > ~~ Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2009 ~~ > > * where: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK > * when: 28th March 2009, 1030-1830 > * home: <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/> > * programme: <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/programme> > * register: <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/register/> > * call for proposals: <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/> > * last year: <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2008/> > > The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) is back for its fourth installment > bringing together individuals and groups from across the open knowledge > spectrum for a day of talks, discussions and workshops. > > This year the event will feature dedicated sessions on 'open knowledge > and development' and 'open data and the semantic web'. In addition we > are reserving a substantial part of the event for the 'Open Space'- > sessions, workshops and discussions proposed either via the call for > proposals or on the day. > > Interested in giving a paper? Have a project to talk about? Want to run > a workshop or session? Please see the call for proposals: > > <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/> > > Want to get involved in putting the event together or otherwise helping > out? Contact us at info [at] okfn [dot] org or add your name to the > OKCon wiki page: > > <http://okfn.org/wiki/okcon/2009/> > > Last but not least: we encourage early registration as space is limited: > > <http://www.okfn.org/okcon/register/> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ed Kelly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:25:58 +0000 > Subject: [mySociety:public] Internet Blackout & The Convention of Modern > Liberty > Hi, > 1st of I understand this is not 'developer' related directly 'unless' > it was implemented... > > Not 100% sure if this is coincidence however some of you may know New > Zealand has some very draconian legislation coming into effect on 28 > Feb namely Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act nicknamed Guilt > Upon Accusation law. > > It's been posted onto Ars Technica and will no doubt arrive on our > favourite sites too, they are asking for an Internet Blackout protest > > http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html > http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html > > As some of you will be aware The Convention of Modern Liberty takes > place on the same day in the UK. > > http://www.modernliberty.net/ > > I wonder if this would be something My Society would support (as > similar plans have already been mooted for the UK)? > > I accept My Society does not directly deal with this type of thing > (copyright infringement et al) but after the recent success regarding > the 'climbdown' over MP expenses it may be worth a blog post as a show > of solidarity. > > What do people think? I personally would love to see My Society > possibly do it on the 28th with an indication that we 'could' be next > but that's my personal view. > > Regards > > Ed Kelly > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Francis Davey <[email protected]> > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" < > [email protected]> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:05:01 +0000 > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Internet Blackout & The Convention of > Modern Liberty > > > 2009/2/20 Ed Kelly <[email protected]> > >> Hi, >> 1st of I understand this is not 'developer' related directly 'unless' >> it was implemented... >> >> Not 100% sure if this is coincidence however some of you may know New >> Zealand has some very draconian legislation coming into effect on 28 >> Feb namely Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act nicknamed Guilt >> Upon Accusation law. > > > I've commented elsewhere on this. I don't think the campaign against the > amendments is doing itself any favours by describing the law in those terms. > I have some sympathy as a political campaigner myself, but I know its > important not to overstate a case otherwise one looks stupid. > > Now in this case the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 does > many things, one of which is to insert new ss.92A-E into the Copyright Act > 2004, which you can find here: > > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html > > The amending act is here: > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/22.0/viewpdf.aspx but > s.92B-E appear to already be in force. > > I don't like the way s.92A is structured, but it does not contain a > provision that requires ISP's to terminate the accounts of their customers > merely on accusation. It says: > > "92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating > accounts of repeat infringers > "(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably imple > ment a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate cir > cumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider > of a repeat infringer. > "(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who re > peatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more > of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a > restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner. > > Two notes: > > (i) a "repeat infringer" is someone who does infringe more than once - it > is not someone who has been accused more than once. s.92A does not require a > policy to deal with those accused of infringement. > > (ii) disconnection is only required in "appropriate circumstances". > > This is almost identical to the DMCA repeat infringer policy provisions > although put in stronger terms (in the DMCA the repeat infringer policy is > merely required as a requirement for the ISP to take advantage of the DMCA's > safe harbor provisions, here it is free-standing). > > You may not like it, but it is a *long* way from a guilt by association > law. > > Now these provisions are bad. A post here: > > http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/6270 > > gives some discussion of why. The badness has nothing to do with a guilt by > association law, but to do with the pusillanimous nature of the ISP's > protection from copyright liability. The DMCA does a much better job. > > But *our* laws (in the European Union) can be criticised on exactly the > same basis (and indeed aren't much different). I've been saying this like a > broken record but no-one much seems to take any notice. I certainly don't > remember calls for internet blackouts when the e-commerce directive was > passed. > > Also, these laws protect ISP's from liability. What is wrong is they aren't > *good enough* protection. > > >> >> It's been posted onto Ars Technica and will no doubt arrive on our >> favourite sites too, they are asking for an Internet Blackout protest >> >> http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html >> http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html >> >> As some of you will be aware The Convention of Modern Liberty takes >> place on the same day in the UK. >> >> http://www.modernliberty.net/ >> >> I wonder if this would be something My Society would support (as >> similar plans have already been mooted for the UK)? >> >> I accept My Society does not directly deal with this type of thing >> (copyright infringement et al) but after the recent success regarding >> the 'climbdown' over MP expenses it may be worth a blog post as a show >> of solidarity. >> >> What do people think? I personally would love to see My Society >> possibly do it on the 28th with an indication that we 'could' be next >> but that's my personal view. > > > It sounds more like an Open Rights Group thing, you might want to read what > has been said so far in ORG-discuss and perhaps try to galvanise activity > over there. > > The directive allows member states to impose certain kinds of obligation of > this kind. The government do make noises about it but its easier to oppose > something that has reached the concrete proposal stage. > > In principle you could obtain an injunction against an ISP to order them to > take action against a repeat infringer as the law stands, though that might > be an impossibly impractical thing to do. This is (by the way) another hole > in our existing law, but I find when I try to discuss what is actually wrong > with internet copyright liability law with anyone in the UK their eye's > glaze over and they lose interest. Much more exciting to get upset about > exagerrated headlines from the other side of the world. > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
