Slashdot Mirror

According to data protection laws anyone has right to ask what data about them is stored in said database, how it's stored and to correct, or remove it. Free of charge.

Under The Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000, a data controller can charge a data subject £10.00 for access to their data, or £2.00 for access to information held on their financial standing.

So it expired a while back.

I'm afraid not, it was amended in 1995/6 to life + 70. A human readable summary of UK copyright law is here. In short:

Duration of copyright

The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration as:

      1. For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

            70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

            If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
      2. Sound Recordings and broadcasts

            50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,

            if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
      3. Films

            70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies.

            If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.
      4. Typographical arrangement of published editions

            25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
      5. Broadcasts and cable programmes

            50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made.

It became illegal about 15 years ago - from TFA, it states Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This basically criminalised raves (which at the time were being demonised from hysteria and moral panicing from the tabloids and the politicians), even if they are held on legal ground.

AFAICT, it criminalises any gathering of over 100 people in a public place where music is played (defined infamously as "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats"), unless they have obtained the appropriate entertainment licence, but furthermore, any it allows the police to disperse any gathering of 2 or more people if the police think they're preparing a rave, or 10 or more people if the police think they're waiting for a rave.

No evidence, no courts, no right to appeal.

Of course, the police deserve criticism for applying the law in a case that was clearly not in its original spirit, but let's not remember the law they used to do it is broad and draconian. The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal. What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.

From TFA, the polic: "far more resources would have been used to police the event". In my experience of Cambridge's Strawberry Fair, these resources would predominantly have involved the police doing a fishing expedition in order to catch people with cannabis on them (I experienced this first hand when travelling through Cambridge Train Station that day - even though I wasn't going to the fair, every single person getting off the train that day was detained for about 30 minutes for stop and search for drugs).

I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws

Life + 50. So it expired a while back.

And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night.

No, it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation (most spellings intentional ;-} though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001) to crack down even on non-disturbing events, as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings.

However, the respective section "applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers)" and continues regarding the music "(with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality".
Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party, no matter whether the "kids'" friends were invited by way of (as opposed to the event being advertised on) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet.

Since 1994 with the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994.
I cant take credit for this info though, shamelessly stolen from the discussion on reddit yesterday.

The actual legislation if anyone's interested.

RTFS more carefully next time before you chastize someone for not paying attention. It makes you look bad.

Check up on the law before chastizing someone for chastizing someone for not paying attention. In particular: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb1-l1g16 16(2) and http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/22/657. The NPG appears to be alleging that the user/wikipedia are authorizing UK users' infringement. And: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24 24(2); there's an accusation of unlawful downloading, too.

RTFS more carefully next time before you chastize someone for not paying attention. It makes you look bad.

Check up on the law before chastizing someone for chastizing someone for not paying attention. In particular: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb1-l1g16 16(2) and http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/22/657. The NPG appears to be alleging that the user/wikipedia are authorizing UK users' infringement. And: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24 24(2); there's an accusation of unlawful downloading, too.

The works in the photo may not have copyright, but the fact is, the photos still have copyright. - only if the photograph of that public domain work has sufficient creative input from the creator to create a new copyright.

It's a degree of 'skill, labour or judgement' in the UK.

The bar for 'creative input' is fairly low (deciding where to stand in order to take a picture of a sculpture is enough), but a flatbed scan is clearly not enough, as the court explicitly found in the Bridgeman case.

It appears to be generally expected that this won't affect UK judgements. The NPC is also claiming a breach of database right and contract. Presumably this, legally, comes down to a question of whether an infringing act happened in the UK. (Practically speaking I imagine it'll come down to something entirely different, such as taking up there offer of low resolution images in order to avoid the risk of a personal tragedy of a lawsuit). Authorizing another to perform an infringing act in the UK is against UK law, even if the person giving the authorization is not in the UK. This Wikipedia user is specifically accused of this. It's also secondary infringement to transmit something from the UK to another country knowing that infringing copies will be made of it outside the UK and then re-imported (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24 - 24(2)). Things don't look too good for him from this POV either.

Let's say someone made a cd, where they performed songs that are all in public domain. They still get copyright over their version of the performance. - that is because the performance of a public domain work is different from the original work.

Actually, you get performance rights (in the UK, anyway). You get them because a special bit of law says so.

No. There's exemptions for private study, incidental inclusion and for purpose of criticism or review (in the latter case, so long as the original work is cited).

The copyright office has said that the "copies for private study" exception includes listening to music for pleasure.

Cite please.

The sleep-deprived can read the relevant section of the act here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_3#pt1-ch3-pb2-l1g29

Are they insane? Yes, they are.
These are the same people who claim that playing TV or radio in public requires a license, even when there is no charge to view or listen, despite that section 72 of the copyright, designs and patents act says otherwise. They then attempt to sue police stations among others for breaking their fictitious interpretation of the law.

one anonymous commenter said: "This must be bogus â" you are not allowed to cycle on public footpaths in the UK, I can't believe Google would have overlooked such a fundamental fact. Not to mention that the vehicle pictured wouldn't fit down most paths."

In Scotland a pedal cycle is deemed in case law to be an 'aid to pedestrianism' and is consequently permitted anywhere where walking is permitted. Furthermore the Land Reform Act 2003 explicitly grants the right to cycle more or less anywhere, with very limited exceptions.

The English are a curious, backward, primitive people with curious views about private land, but they don't (fortunately) constitute the whole of the United Kingdom.

There are two sides to the story. The criminal aspect, and the civil aspect.

I'm not sure about dutch law, however, a lot of the recent UK law (which I am more familiar with) has been enshrined here via EU directives aimed at legal harmonisation. So don't take what I say too seriously...

The civil aspect covers the violation of the copyright license associated with the works. You are not criminally liable for merely breaking a license. The criminal aspect only comes into play when you break something enacted in statue.

Consider, The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1998) here in the UK -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g107

s.107 covers the criminal offense (Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles). It limits criminal acts to those performed in the course of a business, in terms of sale, and those performed other than for "his private and domestic use".

The civil issue is different. Merely obtaining something does not mean you agree to a license. But common law has long established that using something, in a certain manner - often in accordance to normal use - can imply a factual agreement to contract.

Therefore, one should assume that aquiring a copyrighted work does not mean you have to assume the terms of its license, but once you decide to use the product in a non-domestic, public or commerical manner, it is implied you accept the incorporated restrictions (which will prohibit such use). You will then be liable.

So there is this big grey area that needs testing!

The UK legal definition of "theft" is: A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
I would be very suprised to find the US definition was not much the same.
That 'permanently depriving' bit though, means copyright infringment can never be theft.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1968/pdf/ukpga_19680060_en.pdf

I seem to recall a rather more blunt quote, but since I unfortunately cannot find it, the official ICO response to the proposals was:

20 October 2008
ICO statement on the Communications Data Bill A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said: "This summer the Information Commissioner called for a public debate on government proposals for the state to retain citizensâ(TM) internet and phone records. The Commissioner warned that it is likely that such a scheme would be a step too far for the British way of life. Creating huge databases containing personal information is never a risk-free option as it is not possible to fully eliminate the danger that the data will fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore of paramount importance that proposals threatening such intrusion into our lives are fully debated. We welcome the fact that the government intends to fully consult the public on any scheme it brings forward. Precise details of the plans are unclear at this stage; the ICO will be studying the proposals once published and responding to the Government's consultation in due course."

Incidentally some may find the ICO's press release list (the source for the above quote) makes for some interesting reading. Surprised there is no follow-up to the debate though, I'd have thought he's try to get his oar in again.

Just kidding. They simply didn't bother with the debate: "Civil libertarians are outraged that the change came into force without a debate in parliament, having been brought in by statutory implement". (statutory instrument info).

So, it would appear that firstly they sneaked the EU directive in by calling it "commercial" legislation rather than a policing one. This forced themselves to implement it, but allows them to blame it on the EU, even though they were the ones pushing it through there. Back home, they proposed a Bill (which would result in an Act, a "proper" law by "proper" means IMHO), started the normal proposal procedure, but then didn't like what they were hearing so chucked it through as a statutory implement instead. Nice.

Oh and by the way, since people seem to be avoiding it, the names of the directives & law are, I think:
UK SI The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009
(Also see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000)
EU Directive is EU Directive 2006/24/EC[PDF]
(doubtless there's a raft of other legislation of varying degrees of relevance)

I seem to recall a rather more blunt quote, but since I unfortunately cannot find it, the official ICO response to the proposals was:

20 October 2008
ICO statement on the Communications Data Bill A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said: "This summer the Information Commissioner called for a public debate on government proposals for the state to retain citizensâ(TM) internet and phone records. The Commissioner warned that it is likely that such a scheme would be a step too far for the British way of life. Creating huge databases containing personal information is never a risk-free option as it is not possible to fully eliminate the danger that the data will fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore of paramount importance that proposals threatening such intrusion into our lives are fully debated. We welcome the fact that the government intends to fully consult the public on any scheme it brings forward. Precise details of the plans are unclear at this stage; the ICO will be studying the proposals once published and responding to the Government's consultation in due course."

Incidentally some may find the ICO's press release list (the source for the above quote) makes for some interesting reading. Surprised there is no follow-up to the debate though, I'd have thought he's try to get his oar in again.

Just kidding. They simply didn't bother with the debate: "Civil libertarians are outraged that the change came into force without a debate in parliament, having been brought in by statutory implement". (statutory instrument info).

So, it would appear that firstly they sneaked the EU directive in by calling it "commercial" legislation rather than a policing one. This forced themselves to implement it, but allows them to blame it on the EU, even though they were the ones pushing it through there. Back home, they proposed a Bill (which would result in an Act, a "proper" law by "proper" means IMHO), started the normal proposal procedure, but then didn't like what they were hearing so chucked it through as a statutory implement instead. Nice.

Oh and by the way, since people seem to be avoiding it, the names of the directives & law are, I think:
UK SI The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009
(Also see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000)
EU Directive is EU Directive 2006/24/EC[PDF]
(doubtless there's a raft of other legislation of varying degrees of relevance)

Why would the UK government pay a company in the Netherlands to comply with a UK legislation?

Reimbursement of expenses of compliance

11.--(1) The Secretary of State may reimburse any expenses incurred by a public communications provider in complying with the provisions of these Regulations.

(2) Reimbursement may be conditional on the expenses having been notified to the Secretary of State and agreed in advance.

(3) The Secretary of State may require a public communications provider to comply with any audit that may be reasonably required to monitor a claim for reimbursement.

"In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it."

It is illegal to view the image. It's just how the law is written.

As I don't know of any strict liability crime arising from these facts, I surmise that they have not broken one, but I stand to be corrected.

Read the Computer Misuse Act. Also the reason why Sony's rootkit was criminal.

Feel free to read the law first. It's actually quite readable, even to non-lawyers. It looks like they might have some wiggle room with clause (3)(2) to me.

Please see section 84 of The Postal Services Act 2000 which states:

128. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

Why would it become your property after 28 days when the sender doesn't even know it didn't get to the intended recipient?

Even if the phone is duly reported lost or stolen after the 28 days then sorry, UK law permits the sale so it is entirely legal. I just wish they had sent me more phones ;)

So now you are seriously telling us that it is legal to sell stolen property, so long as the police don't catch you within 28 days?

You sir, are an ass.

In the UK, I would suspect using one of these cards would class as an offence under Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, or more broadly under sections 2 and 6 of the Fraud Act 2006

Heh, no.

Reading the Law is free; Interpretation and explaination are what costs money.

N.B. I appreciate that OPSI is for UK legislation, but the same applies to whichever resource you choose for US Law.

Not so. The Freedom of Information Act covers all government owned or created information subject to the 23 exemptions in the Act. Some details of private correspondence might be exempt in some circumstances but this must be considered on a case-by-case basis and is not automatic. This Hotmail account certainly falls under the scope of the FOI Act. Perhaps the bigger problem is that personal data of the constituents was not kept securely, which is a breach of the 7th data protection principle of the Data Protection Act.

Jack Straw is responsible for UK policy on both freedom of information and data protection.

Not so. The Freedom of Information Act covers all government owned or created information subject to the 23 exemptions in the Act. Some details of private correspondence might be exempt in some circumstances but this must be considered on a case-by-case basis and is not automatic. This Hotmail account certainly falls under the scope of the FOI Act. Perhaps the bigger problem is that personal data of the constituents was not kept securely, which is a breach of the 7th data protection principle of the Data Protection Act.

Jack Straw is responsible for UK policy on both freedom of information and data protection.

It is in the UK. It's unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation."

That may have been the original intention when the first child pornography law was created (I believe that was in 1977), but those who now scream "think of the children!" are not really thinking of the children at all.

Child pornography is an emotional topic, so it is very easy to use the issue for political reasons. Campaigning for laws against issues which cause moral outrage are an easy way for a politician to raise his profile and/or attract support. Each campaigner has to find something slightly different to campaign for, so it's not surprising that someone eventually chose virtual child porn.

Of course, laws against child pornography are also a great way to justify intrusive and restrictive laws. Child porn (among other issues, such as terrorism) was used to justify Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (UK), which forces a person to provide any encryption keys which they know of, under penalty of imprisonment.

Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power, so it is not surprising that politicians use them regardless of the consequences to children and ethical paedophiles.

seriously. i mean, you might be able to argue that Sarbanes-Oxley is not the correct way to regulate publicly traded companies, but to say that deregulation is the solution is just incredibly stupid considering the history of corporate scandal/corruption we've had in this country.

if companies are being driven out of the U.S. to the U.K., it's certainly not due to the London Stock Exchange being less-regulated. the FSMA 2000, passed by British Parliament two years prior to Sarbanes-Oxley being passed in the U.S., established equally extensive business regulations designed to promote responsible corporate governance and protect consumer interests. and even before the FSMA 2000 the U.K. had one of the best regulatory systems in the world.

if anything, it was the lack of sound business regulations in the U.S. in the first place and the corruption which this unregulated environment created that caused such a public backlash forcing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be passed. if U.S. policy makers and industry lobbies hadn't been pushing for deregulation all these years, and had instead adopted the principle-based regulations that have long been employed in the U.K. and the rest of Europe, then there would have been no need for the strict rule-based regulation U.S. companies are now faced with.

ignoring the need for sound business regulations is ignoring the realities of capitalist industries. if you resist sensible regulations that are necessary to protect public interest and societal well-being (with minimal enforcement action), then you invite corporate malfeasance and risk repeating mistakes of the past; at best there will be a public scandal and at worst an economic disaster, either of which will cause politicians to overcompensate for the lack of progressive regulations with reactionary ones like Sarbanes-Oxley. so the author's attitude is exactly what got us into the current situation.

of course, then the author goes on to suggest that we return to Reaganomics, as if tax cuts for the rich have never been tried before (or have ever worked in the past).

Incorrect but factual.

Conventional copyrights for printed works (c)... expire according to a "death plus" rule. In the UK, they used to expire at "death plus fifty years", and were then extended to "death plus seventy years" to harmonise with the US and with some other parts of the EU. For those cases, "twenty-year extensions" came to Europe a while back.

The US actually harmonized with Europe which was mandated by the Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection ordered in 1993 where the US didn't extend their copyrights until 1998. Anyways, the UK passed he law extending their copyright in 1995 but it didn't take effect until 1996.

Europe has always been ahead of the US on copyright term lengths. Anyways, the UK would have been satisfying the EU directive, not the US's. I'm not exactly trying to be pedantic here but I have seen too many people blame the US for Europe's copyright disasters when it is actually Europe at fault, not the US or RIAA or Disney buying US politicians.

>>They used anti-terror laws against Iceland, who are not at all terrorists.

>When? Do you have a cite on this?

It's well known.

Well 'known', but incorrect. The freezing order was under the 'security' part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, not the 'anti-terrorism' part.

Specifically Section 4(2)(a):

(1) The Treasury may make a freezing order if the following two conditions are satisfied. ...
(a) action to the detriment of the United Kingdom's economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons...

It's nice having a Bill of Rights, ain't it?

Laugh at all the British who say such a thing is unnecessary.

Who are all these British who say such a thing?

Britain has got a 'Bill of Rights': the Human Rights Act, which guarantees free speech, right to a fair trial (including the right not to incriminate oneself), etc, etc. This act formally enshrines rights that we've had under common law for centuries (eg, Habeas Corpus).

The fact that this court (not the highest in the land, mind) has chosen to interpret an encryption key as not covered under the right not to self-incriminate does not alter the fact that we also have constitutional rights.

So laugh away at your mythical British who say they don't need anything like the Bill of Rights.

Disclaimer: I think Britain is royally fucked anyway.

If the information in the database can be used to identify you (which it obviously can at the very least for emails & mobile phone communications) then you can send a Freedom of Information Request to the Government to be sent a copy of said information.

Now, in itself one request wouldn't really make them reconsider - but if a few tens of thousand or more people started making these demands - which the government has to comply to - then they might get so swamped with requests, that it becomes too costly to maintain the system.

They don't say they forgot because there's usually other evidence that they know the key.

For example, timestamps on the encrypted file, unencrypted corroborating data in a swapfile, or evidence that the machine was switched on at some recent point in time.

By the way, everyone gets it wrong, but RIPA does not require that you reveal your key. It requires that you make the data available in "intelligible form". You can read the details here.

Rich.

Shock, horror! London-based newspaper misunderstands the way that the legal system works north of Gretna!

Confusing England with the UK would be like confusing California with the USA, if there were no federal laws, but most of the power was still at the federal level, and it tried to make state laws not conflict with each other too much.

Insomniacs can read an example of how a law is framed (at UK level, by the UK government) to take into account the differences between the Scottish and Anglowelsh legal systems here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

To further confuse matters, devolution has given some (different levels of) legal powers to assemblies/governments in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and the ratification of European treaties means that European law can trump national law (not just the EU - see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/european.htm)

If this makes any sense I'm not telling it right.

What I find ever more concerning is not only the amount of spying, but how contrived the use of spying equipment has become.

Thanks to the The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, originally intended to prevent crime and stop terrorism, state bodies and councils are now authorised to use spying equipment almost at their volition.

According to an article on bloomberg, such use includes tracking down dog owners who fail to clean up after their four-legged friends, as well as catching people who are dumping waste etc.

For what is not covered by the anti-terrorism laws the http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040036_en_3#pt2-l1g19 Civil Contingencies Act 2004 covers the rest.

The data that can be collected is listed in Scedule 1 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060015_en_5#sch1 There are around 50 pieces of information, however you should look at paragraph 2(d) which gives the government the right to record any biometric information about us. My biggest problem with this scheme is that of function creep and the great amount of surveillance we have here in the UK. If you look down to paragraph 9 in the link I provided you can also see the scheme creates an automatic audit trail every time the information is used. Therefore the correct way to look at this system is in terms of surveillance and building indexes on our lives. I just don't think it is wise to allow the government this much potential for abuse with no reasonable justification.

The fear in the UK is that the ID are backed by a national database with fingerprint information and that sort of thing.

Actually, that's required by the ID cards act of 2006.

However, they can add data at any time, without informing people.

They will store everywhere you've ever lived, so then know who you've lived with, and who they've lived with. They'll also know who you worked with. As someone with an interest in datamining, this does somewhat concern me. Here's the full act (ID card act of 2006)

It can be used to store any data:

for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime

Nice cop-out, eh? This act gives any government the power to store data for the purposes of detecting people doing things they don't want them to do.

Oh, and under this act, *everyone* over the age of 16:

is entitled to be entered in it

Lucky them.

The act can require you to be present at a certain time to provide all of this information, too. If you don't agree on a time or a place then they will just specify one. Don't do it? You

shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.

Of course, access to the database is highly restricted, it's restricted to people they want to let access it. Phew, was worried companies might get a hold of it for less than, but it's a good thing the government has never been found to give things in return for money.

Also, this is all ignoring the small level problems, like a jilted lover working in the government finding out where their ex now lives, etc.

I don't think it's been clearly defined what the data is

Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Note that it's the individual's responsibility to ensure that all that is kept up to date, and failure to e.g. notify the registrar when you move house makes you liable to a fine of £1000.

Of course you could just do what our wonderful country did for the London Olympics. Oops. That's maybe an offence. I'm not registered to actually write that..... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_7#sch3 - part of the law enacted whcih among other things clamps down incredibly tightly on how may even think about using the words, London, 2012, Olympics together....

Whilst the summary's nothing more than a troll (as everyone else has said, the ASA isn't a government authority) there is at least one area where it mandates something in this area - website presentation. It's in the "Disability Discrimination Act 1995":

(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled personâ"

(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;

The link to the text of the law is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_4#pt3-pb1-l1g19

It's usually interpreted as forcing web sites to be compatible with screen readers (used by the blind) and high contrast / large character screen modes (used by the partially sighted).

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone who relied on a screen reader decided to take a service provider who didn't provide an accessible mode to court. If it meant that more sites had a more easily accessible "just the text, please" mode I'd welcome it.

It's worth mentioning that Adobe apparently do have a go at making Flash content potentially accessible:
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flashplayer/

I'm pretty sure that regulations require companies to identify themselves in all communications (it's certainly true for email and web under legislation in last 2 years) with you.

That is a UK company that spams you and doesn't leave the company name and contact details, or who have a website and don't have that information on it are breaking the law.

Review of requirements - http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/ruDetail?type=REGUPDATE&itemId=1078632802
The SI - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20063428.htm

Would be stupid if this doesn't also apply to audio telecommunications ...!

legality is an issue - why should *you* make the judgement on whether that data is in fact stolen - perhaps that data has been placed their by banking regulators/NHTCU using 'honeypot' card numbers so that tracing can occur to recover funds.

A well known Scottish bank (that I used to work at) were well known for chasing money launderers who have (ab)used their systems to the ends of the earth - often spending more than the consequential fraud loss to do so. In the old days, they used to use marked cheques - nowadays they have hotscan products that will trace payments to affiliated payment networks across international borders.

Yeah, breaking into phishing sites is a lot of fun, but before you "drop table", think about your actions and whether you are breaking the computer misuse act (UK) or the Police and Justice Act (Scotland) or indeed any law from the host nation.

The Gary MacKinnon case has shown that a rather underrated cracker (poking around with Term Services looking for blank passwds -- for FS!) can cause an extradition to a foreign country well known for its human rights abuses - is just shocking.

legality is an issue - why should *you* make the judgement on whether that data is in fact stolen - perhaps that data has been placed their by banking regulators/NHTCU using 'honeypot' card numbers so that tracing can occur to recover funds.

A well known Scottish bank (that I used to work at) were well known for chasing money launderers who have (ab)used their systems to the ends of the earth - often spending more than the consequential fraud loss to do so. In the old days, they used to use marked cheques - nowadays they have hotscan products that will trace payments to affiliated payment networks across international borders.

Yeah, breaking into phishing sites is a lot of fun, but before you "drop table", think about your actions and whether you are breaking the computer misuse act (UK) or the Police and Justice Act (Scotland) or indeed any law from the host nation.

The Gary MacKinnon case has shown that a rather underrated cracker (poking around with Term Services looking for blank passwds -- for FS!) can cause an extradition to a foreign country well known for its human rights abuses - is just shocking.

I think what you're referring to is The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which offers "...a right of access to mapped areas of mountain, moor land, down land, heath land and registered common land be it on tracks and paths or off them". It offers no provision of access to private property which is unfortunately classed as trespass and as such is illegal (albeit rarely punished).

Seeing as the owner of the property clearly marked the fact that the property was private then under the UK definition of trespass "Entry onto or possession of the property owned by another without the owner's consent" so Google wouldn't be legally allowed to enter to take photographs or otherwise. If you could see the house from a public road then fine but crossing private property to take the picture is a no go.

He is liable to trial under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the UK, with a sentence of up to 5 years if found guilty.

Schedule 1 of the Extradition Act 1989 appears to me to essentially list the offences that could be tried in the UK or overseas, for which extradition is preferred. To paraphrase, they are attacking a diplomat of the foreign country in question, taking hostages, smuggling radioactive material or torture. Now obviously this 1989 act predates the 1990 one, but does hacking seem to fit in this group?

He is liable to trial under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the UK, with a sentence of up to 5 years if found guilty.

Schedule 1 of the Extradition Act 1989 appears to me to essentially list the offences that could be tried in the UK or overseas, for which extradition is preferred. To paraphrase, they are attacking a diplomat of the foreign country in question, taking hostages, smuggling radioactive material or torture. Now obviously this 1989 act predates the 1990 one, but does hacking seem to fit in this group?