Andy Smith wrote:
And he would be happy to set precedent in a court room over what the
definition of "electronic mail" is?
probably, they do it all the time. They look at the evidence presented,
seek precedents, make a judgment and it becomes a precedent until
subsequently corrected or improved upon by others.
How would you argue that a URL to a web form complies with the S.I. :-
(c) the details of the service provider, *including his electronic mail
address*, which make it possible to contact him rapidly and communicate
with him in a direct and effective manner;"
If forced to defend this I would argue that sending a message via a
web site *is* electronic mail and I'd be fairly confident that you'd
not be able to refute it because I don't believe there is any legal
definition of what electronic mail is. Nor should there be.
I'm not arguing that sending a message via a web form is not email, as
it usually is email, but that it may not *provide the email address" on
the web site..
> If you did try then I'd be bringing up gmail, lots of other
web-based email, and all the TV and radio programmes which say
"email us from our website, www.example.com.."
gmail users have email addresses, I have several, you can't go to a
specific web page on Google and send me a message you have to know the
email address.
You are focusing on technical implementation details.
not really, I'm focussing on the lack of a piece of information. Can I
read the website, see an email address, write it down and use it later ?
If so I'm sure it complies.
I can see how the web form does the last bit,
Since the purpose of the law is clearly in the last bit and you have
just agreed that a web form can satisfy that, do you still feel
confident that you could convince judge and jury that it is not
sufficient?
yes. The law not only requires that you can communicate at the time (for
example when buying something) but also subsequently hence it requires
that an email address is provided for future reference. The DSR refers
to sending notice of termination to the last known email address for
example.
but there is an explicit requirement for an email address.
And one of those is legally defined as..?
http://www.lc-law.co.uk/pdf/TheCompaniesRegulations.pdf came to the view
that :-
"Under the Regulations, the minimum
information to be provided on a company’s
website is as follows:
· The name of the company. (We have
already noted that this is required in
terms of the Companies Regulations.)
· An email address for the company. * It is
not sufficient to simply have a “Contact
us” section with no e-mail address. It
would, however, be acceptable to have a
mail address in the following terms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *"
which seems quite a common interpretation, perhaps drawn from some
guidance notes or other precedent, though I concede it is not as
explicit in the legislation itself.
Do you think that anyone wants to spend time and money in a court
arguing that "http://example.com/contact"; is NOT an electronic mail
address?
Probably not, but if taken to Court for having no email address on their
web site would anyone spend time and money arguing that a web form URL
was adequate and complied with the law ? I think not. They would just
stick an email address on the web site and be done with it.
Still, passes the time while the backups run and the spyware is scanned
:-) Why do people run Windows PCs on broadband connections with no
security ?
Phil
_______________________________________________
Peterboro mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
