Their latest reply:-
I can confirm that having reviewed your correspondence your email address email@example.com would still be deemed to be a corporate subscriber under the PECR. This is because you are using the email address in the workplace in your capacity as a Director of the organisation and not using it for individual purposes. Whilst the PECR do not mention specifically work email addresses it does refer to corporate and individual subscribers. Email addresses provided by employers to their employees, including Directors, are considered to be corporate for the purposes of the PECR.
Now really? This makes no sense. The PECR has actual definitions in it, and they are outright ignoring them! It defines "corporate subscriber" even and I do not meet that definition. So my latest reply is as follows. We'll see what they say...
P.S. just to clarify why I am doing this - this is about as extreme and edge case as I can find which, in my view, meets the regulations. I am trying to find exactly where the line is drawn on this. If the ICO agree this, then it makes the rules much clearer for everyone.
Relating to email address and services for firstname.lastname@example.org:- 1. Do the ICO agree that I meet the definition of "individual" as per section 2 of the regulations? “individual” means a living individual and includes an unincorporated body of such individuals; I believe I come under the "living individual" part of that, I have a heart beat and everything, and would be worried if I do not. 2. Do the ICO agree that I meet the definition of "subscriber" as per section 2 of the regulations? “subscriber” means a person who is a party to a contract with a provider of public electronic communications services for the supply of such services; I appreciated that is more complex, so lets break that down:- 2a. Do the ICO agree that I am a party to a contract for "such services" for that email address? If it helps, I can show you the invoice I pay every month for that. 2b. Do the ICO agree that the other party to that contract, Andrews & Arnold Ltd, are a "provider of public electronic communications services"? If not, then A&A get out of a hell of a lot of other laws and regulations. OFCOM will not be amused. Now, if you said "yes" to all of these, you have to agree:- 3. Do the ICO agree that, for the email address email@example.com, I am meet the definition of "individual subscriber"? I look forward to some simple yes/no answers and will publish them on my blog. If you say no, please explain, as I really cannot see the loophole here no matter how hard I try. Oh, finally, I nearly forgot:- 4. Do the ICO have to actually operate in accordance with the law as written and actually use the definitions in the law?