For further details, see
Monday, May 26, 2008
The regulations also cover Œdisplaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation¹, and Œconducting personal visits to the consumer¹s home ignoring the consumer¹s request to leave¹.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 implements the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) into UK Law.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Whilst users may want to control their "data" (by this, their personal information) and be able to transfer this from one network to another, what is unclear is the extent to which this is happening on a large scale? Secondly, a further complicated dimension to this is that the "profile" is not necessarily about an individual, but rather friends' data being held in another social networking environment, which leads to the question of the applicability of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. There is no question that the processing of data other than yourself constitutes the processing of personal data under the Data Protection Directive (or corresponding national data protection laws), but some theoretical analysis: would Art. 3.2 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (processing personal information even of friends for private purposes) (and corresponding national data protection laws) be applicable? This would depend on whether the data is easily accessible on the internet. The ECJ's decision has been fairly clear in Lindqvist that Art. 3.2 is not applicable given that the the internet is likely to be accessible to anyone. However, whilst the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (and the corresponding national data protection laws) are relevant, the question will now hinge on the applicability of the the exemptions as covered under Art. 9 (artistic, literary and journalistic purposes) and Art. 13 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (and corresponding national data protection laws), which will need to be considered in more scope.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The law, the Communications Data Bill, will implement the remainder of the European Union's Data Retention Directive.
Last October the Government enacted regulations which said that telcos must keep records of phone calls to and from land lines and mobile telephones. That requirement will be extended to records of customers' internet usage, email usage and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) records.
“The aim of the [Directive] is to ensure that certain data is retained to enable public authorities to undertake their lawful activities to investigate, detect and prosecute crime and to protect the public," said a Home Office spokeswoman.
“The first part of the [Directive] was transposed into UK law in October 2007 but the Government made a declaration … to postpone its application to the retention of communications data relating to internet access, internet telephony and internet email until 2009. So the measures referred to in the Communications Data Bill will complete the transposition of the Directive for IP [internet protocol] communications data," said the Home Office spokeswoman."
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Information Commissioner can impose fines when organisations ‘knew or ought to have known that there was a risk that the contravention would occur, and that such a contravention would be of a kind likely to cause substantial distress or damage, but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the contravention..’
Although not what it asked for, ICO welcomes the new penalty.
David Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner said: “This change in the law sends a very clear signal that data protection must be a priority and that it is completely unacceptable to be cavalier with people’s personal information. The prospect of substantial fines for deliberate or reckless breaches of the Data Protection Principles will act as a strong deterrent and help ensure that organisations take their data protection obligations more seriously.
“This new power will enable some of the worst breaches of the Data Protection Act to be punished. By demonstrating that the law is being taken seriously tougher sanctions will help to reassure individuals that data protection matters and give them confidence that organisations have no choice but to handle personal information properly.
Monday, May 05, 2008
"A group of students at Stanford University in the heart of Silicon Valley have turned their attention towards a unique course that blends popular culture with the more time-worn principles of psychology. The Psychology of Facebook is the brainchild of Professor B J Fogg, a pioneering persuasion psychologist who founded the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford.
He says: "When Facebook came along I was one of the developers at the launch and what struck me was how there was this new form of persuasion. This mass interpersonal persuasion."The latest discussion focuses on high-contextualised trust:
- What Defines and Affects Trust?
How Do We Act in a Trusted vs. Untrusted Environment?
How Does Trust Level Compare on Facebook vs. Internet vs. "Real World"
Trust Creation: Slow, Gradual, Painstaking
Trust Destruction: Instant, Deadly, Spectacular
Trust as a Function of "Perception of Risk
One way to think about trust is by examining the flipside - potential downside of opening up and sharing. Trusted environment is one where our perception of risk (something bad happening) is low. Untrusted environment is one we perceive as dangerous in some way. What could affect the perception of risk:
Anonymity vs. accountability for your actions
- Your demographics / psychographic profile (compare Gen Y vs. Boomers)
- Comfort with the environment (sense of control)
- Strength & number of connections (social proof is critical to trust creation)
- Social pressure to participate (downside of being excluded)
- Understanding the potential abuse and how to prevent it
- Predictability of the environment"