[ILUG] [Fwd: I fought the scammer... and I won.]

[Ruairi Newman]

On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 12:44, Steffen Higel wrote:

<snip>
> 
> (e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in
> the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the
> controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or
> 
> (f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests
> pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the
> data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the
> interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which
> require protection under Article 1 (1).

<snip>

To my not-legally-trained mind "to whom the data are disclosed" is a
very important phrase in both of the above clauses.  This may be
interpreted to mean _intentional_ disclosure which I'm sure was not what
the subject had in mind at all.  I wonder how this would affect the
admissibility in court of gathered data.

Unless of course the Internet Cafe in question made at least a small
effort at informing users that data may be monitored in cases of
suspected about or some such handwaving.

Thoughts?

Regards,

R.

-- 
"An email worm is, is a computer virus and a computer virus is a program
 that runs like Microsoft Word on your computer..."
	-- William Campbell, BUA Training on RTE Radio