a problem may be that public bodies could link multiple requests (people acting together) in order to consolidate the costs and push it over the limit
-- Javier Ruiz [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) +44(0)7877 911 412 @javierruiz On Friday, 16 March 2012 at 11:27, Colm Howard-Lloyd wrote: > > Anonymous no. Pseudonym perhaps. In detail at > http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/privacy#real_name > > > > > > From: developers-public-bounces+colm=truthmonkey....@lists.mysociety.org > (mailto:[email protected]) > [mailto:developers-public-bounces+colm=truthmonkey....@lists.mysociety.org > (mailto:[email protected])] On Behalf Of paul perrin > Sent: 16 March 2012 11:22 > To: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); mySociety > public, general purpose discussion list > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Getting a bit t'd off with what do they > know... > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > I am happy to anonymous my requests - then they'll have no option other than > to use the single email address provided. > > > > > > > > It is none of the councils business whether I have asked about info before or > not - councils should respond to the * request* not to the person who > happened to have authored it. > > > > > > > > Paul /)/+) > > > On 16 March 2012 11:14, Stephen Booth <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > But the request isn't from WDTK, it's from a user of what do they know. The > fact that WDTK collates and presents the content of the mail should not make > be conflated with the request being from WDRK (IANAL, I'm approaching this > from a common sense point of view). If they applied that it would be like > saying that a reply to a request from [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) could be sent to [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) and be legal as they are both hotmail. In > each case the 'company' is just acting as an intermediary between the > originator of the request and the recipient, WDTK is acting as a specialised > webmail service with added features and support for the end user. > > Stephen > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colm Howard-Lloyd <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > Sender: developers-public-bounces+stephenbooth.uk > (http://stephenbooth.uk)[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:39:17 > To: mySociety public, general purpose discussion > list<[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> > Cc: mySociety public, general purpose discussion > list<[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Getting a bit t'd off with what do they > know... > > There is a legal precedent (Bernuth Lines Ltd) that ruled that any valid > email address at a company could be used for the service of documents. > > Although applying only to maritime arbitration cases, it would suggest > perhaps that any valid WDTK address might constitute a valid response. > > On 16 Mar 2012, at 10:24, Stephen Booth <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > On 16 March 2012 07:58, Seb Bacon <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > >> FYI, every outgoing email already says "Please use this email address > >> for all replies to this request: [email protected] > >> (mailto:[email protected])" at the > >> bottom. Other ideas for user education welcome :) > >> > > > > Could the ICO be encouraged to view a reply sent to an email address > > other than that in the From: or Reply-To: headers of or specified in > > the body of the original emailed request as not being a reply, even if > > the authority believe or claim to believe it went to the same person? > > > > Stephen > > > > -- > > It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption. > > > > http://stephensorablog.blogspot.com/ | > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenboothuk | Skype: stephenbooth_uk > > > > Apparently I'm a "Eierlegende Woll-Milch-Sau", I think it was meant as > > a compliment. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > developers-public mailing list > > [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/colm%40truthmonkey.org > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/stephenbooth.uk%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/paul%40idltd.com > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/javier%40openrightsgroup.org >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
