I have to say that, in the past, I have been unimpressed by MPs, but this evening I met three that were surprising sensible, and one in particular that clearly has a clue. They were all very good and I had a nice meal and some drinks in the Stranger's bar afterwards.
Chatham House Rule prevent me from naming the MP but he does, apparently read my blog, and I would be delighted if he would post a reply confirming his perl scripting abilities.
Well done.
2013-10-11
iPhone 5S not on the level
Spot the deliberate mistake?
Same table, not moved. Used to show level on my old iPhone 5.
I am not sure these new iPhone 5S's are on the level.
Chatting to their support now - had all sorts of reset settings, set true north, power off and on, etc.
Lets see what else they suggest.
Update: Nice grammar?
Same table, not moved. Used to show level on my old iPhone 5.
I am not sure these new iPhone 5S's are on the level.
Chatting to their support now - had all sorts of reset settings, set true north, power off and on, etc.
Lets see what else they suggest.
Update: Nice grammar?
2013-10-10
ACR
I have written to the ICO again...
When the PECR came in, we raised the issue with the ICO that the mobile operators were not providing anonymous call rejection service.
At the time, the mobile operators, and OFCOM, and the ICO were saying that the means reject such a call was to "press the red button on the phone".
This provided the "user" with means to reject the call, but not the "subscriber" as required by the regulations.
At the time, in spite of the clear breach of the regulations by all of the mobile operators, the ICO did not take any action.
We now have the situation where, on my iPhone, when a call comes in, I no longer have any option to "reject" a call. There is no "red button". At best I can silence the call but not "reject" it as per the regulations.
Once again, as per section 32, I request the Commissioner to exercise his enforcement functions.
When the PECR came in, we raised the issue with the ICO that the mobile operators were not providing anonymous call rejection service.
At the time, the mobile operators, and OFCOM, and the ICO were saying that the means reject such a call was to "press the red button on the phone".
This provided the "user" with means to reject the call, but not the "subscriber" as required by the regulations.
At the time, in spite of the clear breach of the regulations by all of the mobile operators, the ICO did not take any action.
We now have the situation where, on my iPhone, when a call comes in, I no longer have any option to "reject" a call. There is no "red button". At best I can silence the call but not "reject" it as per the regulations.
Once again, as per section 32, I request the Commissioner to exercise his enforcement functions.
Defence for spam case
Well, to my shock, the guy from Deane has suddenly started sending more reasonable emails. Up until now almost every email has been somewhat stroppy, in my opinion, and even threatening, but this morning he was being reasonable!
What he has done is raise the very interesting question of section 30(2): "In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this regulation it shall be a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the relevant requirement."
I have said that I would still want a judge to decide, so not withdrawing the case. It would be a shame if he settled now and avoided court on this really.
The wording is interesting. If I was sending an unsolicited marketing email, what steps could I take to comply with section 22 I wonder?
There is basically no way to tell who is the party to the contract for the communications service. Even an email address that is obviously a work email address or quoted as a work contact could have an individual as the subscriber. So, in my opinion, the only reasonable step one can take in order to comply is not to send any unsolicited marketing emails.
It will be interesting to see what a judge says. What would be worrying is if a judge says that "buying from a list broker that assures you they are business contacts" is a reasonable step, then the regulation becomes pointless. If the judge agrees with me that there is no step you can take then that makes the regulations much more useful. Hopefully we'll see, one way or the other.
P.S. I have emailed the ICO asking what steps someone can take to ensure compliance with section 22.
What he has done is raise the very interesting question of section 30(2): "In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this regulation it shall be a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the relevant requirement."
I have said that I would still want a judge to decide, so not withdrawing the case. It would be a shame if he settled now and avoided court on this really.
The wording is interesting. If I was sending an unsolicited marketing email, what steps could I take to comply with section 22 I wonder?
There is basically no way to tell who is the party to the contract for the communications service. Even an email address that is obviously a work email address or quoted as a work contact could have an individual as the subscriber. So, in my opinion, the only reasonable step one can take in order to comply is not to send any unsolicited marketing emails.
It will be interesting to see what a judge says. What would be worrying is if a judge says that "buying from a list broker that assures you they are business contacts" is a reasonable step, then the regulation becomes pointless. If the judge agrees with me that there is no step you can take then that makes the regulations much more useful. Hopefully we'll see, one way or the other.
P.S. I have emailed the ICO asking what steps someone can take to ensure compliance with section 22.
2013-10-09
Spam court case
The case is clear cut - I was sent an unsolicited marketing email to an email address for which I am an individual subscriber. It is very simple. The email address used is one for which I personally pay Dedicated Programmes. They own the domain and own and operate email servers that provide the email to me, and they also provide email and other communications services to the public making them providers of public communications services. None of the grey areas I am currently discussing with the ICO over @aaisp.net.uk emails.
It is hard to see a more clear cut case. I am looking forward to it going to court.
The other side (Deane), have made offers to settle in full, but only if I remove all details from my blog, which is not going to happen. Though it was almost tempting to agree and then post a blog linking to archive.org copies of the posts. Anyone else wanting to archive and report the blogs on this guy, please do, and please post comments linking to those copies if they suddenly vanish from my blog. Not likely to happen, but who knows.
He has been aggressive the whole time, even accusing me of fraud. I have a right to claim damages for his apparent criminal breach of the regulations.
The latest amusement is that he claims that he has not received the paperwork, including the copy of the invoice and receipt from DP for the email services. Yet I know he received that by email previously as he replied to it. He claims it was marked as spam, which is odd as, well, he replied, so a tad inconsistent. Now he claims not to have the recorded delivery paper copies of the papers I intend to rely on in court. Royal Mail say they carded him and have them for collection. Even providing the RM reference, he claims not to be able to get it! Strange how, when I put the reference in to the RM website I have the option to request redelivery. Why can't he do that? Clearly he is just being difficult for the sake of it, in my opinion.
Well, I have done my bit and paid to post it to him and have proof of that - I really cannot see it being sensible to humour him any more by either emailing or posting stuff again, at expense of my time and money. He already stated that he wants to waste my time and money on this.
Anyway, court paperwork here, any comments, let me know. Maybe he'll read the paperwork here...
His only defence was that the regulations do not apply to B2B emails. I get the impression someone took him to court before who was not an individual subscriber and lost. Pity for him that is not the case here.
P.S. It is worth pointing out that as this is small claims track, if I lose this case, I get to pay his travel from Weymouth and that is it - not the threatened lawyers fees or other costs, a small amount, which will be a very low cost for any sort of training course on the legal system in the UK. It is hard to see how I would lose, but if I do we will all learn a valuable lesson and my blog will be enriched with the details.
2013-10-07
Arbitration
I was interested to learn a bit more about the court service's arbitration service recently. When I had previously taken people to court this was not available, but in a recent case the paperwork offers both parties an arbitration as an option.
Obviously, having previously encountered arbitration in the way of The Ombudsman Service for ADR I was a tad sceptical, but the fact that we could go on to a normal hearing if the arbitration did not work meant there was no risk. So, I had a case go to arbitration.
One of the key, and rather annoying, points is that the arbitration is that it is confidential. Part of the agreement to arbitrate, and the final settlement agreement that can be reached by arbitration, is that the details are confidential to the two parties. This means I am unable to comment on the specific case, sorry.
I did, however, discuss a couple of points with the arbitrator, and he is happy for me to blog on the process itself. Also, he noted, very sensibly, that there was no point trying to change things that were already posted on my blog, even about the specific case - what is published is published. This seemed a sensible enough compromise that I agreed to the terms in this case. Interestingly, in a case that is coming up (and not going to arbitration), the other party (Deane) has offered to settle if I remove all details from my blog. This was the same tactic tried by someone else previously. I did not agree to his offer, or agree to make his offer confidential. With any luck this will go to court in November and we'll have a much clearer case on the whole spamming issue. The case is pretty sewn up, but the defendant seems determined to fight it having won a case before (where the target email was not an individual subscriber, from what I can gather).
Anyway, the arbitration process was simple enough. They book a one hour slot, and call you each on the phone, in turn, to discuss the case. The objective is to try and come to a settlement without having to go to a hearing, and both parties have to be prepared to try and do that, which may mean compromise. The arbitrator was friendly and helpful and offered useful advice. He had read the paperwork that we had submitted to the court (claim and defence and so on). If the agreement is reached, then that binding.
It as amusing that he said he had learned something from this as he did not know you could take action against spammers :-)
I did ask what if one side does not stick to the settlement agreement, and apparently this agreement is not simply like a normal contract where you would sue for a breach of contract - if the agreement is broken then I could apply to the court for summary judgement, of if I prefer, to have the case go on to a hearing. A timescale is agreed for the parties to do what is agreed. So it is quite a simple process.
Another key point is that the arbitration call is free of charge, though you do have to made a claim in the first place which can cost as little as £25 in the county court.
This does rather lead to some serious questions about the ADR process that telcos are forced to join. The cost for ADR is of the order of £350+VAT just to take a case. Some recent rule changes are being considered where the arbitrator can decide that the case is vexatious and dismiss it, but that still means the case fee is paid by the telco as I understand it.
Now, if the county court service can do an arbitration call, and even a hearing in front of a judge for a few tens of pounds, why on earth would ADR cost £350? Something is very wrong there.
What I have suggested via ISPA to CISAS is that taking an ADR case should have two stages. The first stage would be an arbitration call just like the court service's arbitration. This would allow many cases to be resolved, and would allow the arbitrator to determine if a case is totally unfounded or vexatious. Only if the arbitration call fails would a full ADR process then happen. Such a call could be done for tens of pounds, if that. Even though this would (unfairly, by design) fall on the telco, it would allow cases to resolved quickly and cheaply, and bogus cases to be dismissed cheaply.
In an ideal world, that initial cost, lets suggest £20, would be payable by the claimant if the case is dismissed or resolved in the telco's favour. Perhaps, to come to agreement quickly, the telco could offer to cover that fee, if it is agreed that the issue is just a misunderstanding. That would mean that telcos would not be unfairly burdened with bogus case costs, and would create a small but very reasonable barrier to abuse of the process. Apparently the EU regulations creating the need for ADR do not actually say it has to be free, so this would be sensible. If that was the maximum risk to claimant, e.g. a full ADR cost is always paid by telco, that would still avoid a lot of risk for the claimant.
That's the suggestion. If any other ISPs think this is sensible, please let ISPA know.
Obviously, having previously encountered arbitration in the way of The Ombudsman Service for ADR I was a tad sceptical, but the fact that we could go on to a normal hearing if the arbitration did not work meant there was no risk. So, I had a case go to arbitration.
One of the key, and rather annoying, points is that the arbitration is that it is confidential. Part of the agreement to arbitrate, and the final settlement agreement that can be reached by arbitration, is that the details are confidential to the two parties. This means I am unable to comment on the specific case, sorry.
I did, however, discuss a couple of points with the arbitrator, and he is happy for me to blog on the process itself. Also, he noted, very sensibly, that there was no point trying to change things that were already posted on my blog, even about the specific case - what is published is published. This seemed a sensible enough compromise that I agreed to the terms in this case. Interestingly, in a case that is coming up (and not going to arbitration), the other party (Deane) has offered to settle if I remove all details from my blog. This was the same tactic tried by someone else previously. I did not agree to his offer, or agree to make his offer confidential. With any luck this will go to court in November and we'll have a much clearer case on the whole spamming issue. The case is pretty sewn up, but the defendant seems determined to fight it having won a case before (where the target email was not an individual subscriber, from what I can gather).
Anyway, the arbitration process was simple enough. They book a one hour slot, and call you each on the phone, in turn, to discuss the case. The objective is to try and come to a settlement without having to go to a hearing, and both parties have to be prepared to try and do that, which may mean compromise. The arbitrator was friendly and helpful and offered useful advice. He had read the paperwork that we had submitted to the court (claim and defence and so on). If the agreement is reached, then that binding.
It as amusing that he said he had learned something from this as he did not know you could take action against spammers :-)
I did ask what if one side does not stick to the settlement agreement, and apparently this agreement is not simply like a normal contract where you would sue for a breach of contract - if the agreement is broken then I could apply to the court for summary judgement, of if I prefer, to have the case go on to a hearing. A timescale is agreed for the parties to do what is agreed. So it is quite a simple process.
Another key point is that the arbitration call is free of charge, though you do have to made a claim in the first place which can cost as little as £25 in the county court.
This does rather lead to some serious questions about the ADR process that telcos are forced to join. The cost for ADR is of the order of £350+VAT just to take a case. Some recent rule changes are being considered where the arbitrator can decide that the case is vexatious and dismiss it, but that still means the case fee is paid by the telco as I understand it.
Now, if the county court service can do an arbitration call, and even a hearing in front of a judge for a few tens of pounds, why on earth would ADR cost £350? Something is very wrong there.
What I have suggested via ISPA to CISAS is that taking an ADR case should have two stages. The first stage would be an arbitration call just like the court service's arbitration. This would allow many cases to be resolved, and would allow the arbitrator to determine if a case is totally unfounded or vexatious. Only if the arbitration call fails would a full ADR process then happen. Such a call could be done for tens of pounds, if that. Even though this would (unfairly, by design) fall on the telco, it would allow cases to resolved quickly and cheaply, and bogus cases to be dismissed cheaply.
In an ideal world, that initial cost, lets suggest £20, would be payable by the claimant if the case is dismissed or resolved in the telco's favour. Perhaps, to come to agreement quickly, the telco could offer to cover that fee, if it is agreed that the issue is just a misunderstanding. That would mean that telcos would not be unfairly burdened with bogus case costs, and would create a small but very reasonable barrier to abuse of the process. Apparently the EU regulations creating the need for ADR do not actually say it has to be free, so this would be sensible. If that was the maximum risk to claimant, e.g. a full ADR cost is always paid by telco, that would still avoid a lot of risk for the claimant.
That's the suggestion. If any other ISPs think this is sensible, please let ISPA know.
2013-10-01
Juice
Can anyone please explain why something sold as "Mango & Passionfruit" has 87% apple juice?
Surely that is "Apple, with a little Mango and even less Passionfruit"? How many things have one of the two main headline ingredients at 4% content?
What is wrong with Trading Standards in this county?
Also, it says not from concentrate, but surely "puree" is a form of concentrate?
Update: Some interesting comments here, thanks. I think I have worked out my biggest gripe here with it - the brand is sold as a premium "juice", and even says "not from concentrate" to highlight the quality. It is not sold in the same way as flavoured squash or even flavoured crisps - so you (mistakenly) think that the headline description might vaguely describe the juice you are buying rather than just the [real juice] flavouring that has been added. To my shock, the "Orange & Lime" was mostly orange, some grape, and 0.5% lime juice. The lime is very much "just the flavouring". To be fair these drinks do taste nice, and I dare say that any sensible quantity of lime juice would taste rather nasty. Ultimately if the headline is just the flavour it just lacks the one word "flavoured" in the headline. It is that small detail that is missing, in my opinion. Oh well.
Surely that is "Apple, with a little Mango and even less Passionfruit"? How many things have one of the two main headline ingredients at 4% content?
What is wrong with Trading Standards in this county?
Also, it says not from concentrate, but surely "puree" is a form of concentrate?
Update: Some interesting comments here, thanks. I think I have worked out my biggest gripe here with it - the brand is sold as a premium "juice", and even says "not from concentrate" to highlight the quality. It is not sold in the same way as flavoured squash or even flavoured crisps - so you (mistakenly) think that the headline description might vaguely describe the juice you are buying rather than just the [real juice] flavouring that has been added. To my shock, the "Orange & Lime" was mostly orange, some grape, and 0.5% lime juice. The lime is very much "just the flavouring". To be fair these drinks do taste nice, and I dare say that any sensible quantity of lime juice would taste rather nasty. Ultimately if the headline is just the flavour it just lacks the one word "flavoured" in the headline. It is that small detail that is missing, in my opinion. Oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
QR abuse...
I'm known for QR code stuff, and my library, but I have done some abuse of them for fun - I did round pixels rather than rectangular, f...
-
This is an appeal for (sensible) comments. I am working on revised A&A tariffs for broadband. For those that are not sure how they wor...
-
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo... -
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...