Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 17:46:39
writes
>I'm not sure that Tanos could lawfully use postcode or location data to
>target specific areas, as such could violate the Data Protection Act --
>the information provided by the data subject would not have been used
>for the purpose why it was initially provided.
>
>On the other hand, a banner or other advert seeking specific support
>from people in certain named constituencies wouldn't be illegal though
>it could look tacky and could give the false impression that folk living
>elsewhere didn't matter.
>
Tanos has already designed and displayed a Backlash banner (pity no one
had dealt with his request for one) and allowed people to freely post to
Boards / weblogs etc.
I think the posting of memos - and the encouragement to do so was _not_
a good idea.
--
^Thunder^
tiana, 08 Nov 2005 18:14:10
Author wrote:
> well it seemed like a good idea to memo people on ic who are in key labour marginal seats(using the postcode search)... the personal touch to perhaps sway them to write to their MP
> and ok Tanos wasn't enamoured of the idea... ok girl asked him after posting the thread.... but its for the cause etc... and girl sends so few memos , she must be owed a few...
> but strangely after only 6 memos her power to memo disappeared!!!
I've been reading the mails and can see how people want to
push people into mailing their MP's etc, and i can understand why it needs to be done. However, targetting IC members without the website owners permission is only going to put his, and other people's backs up.
I think one of the problems is that although people may be sympathetic and supportive and are behind what Backlash is trying to do, they don't want to get personally involved because they don't want the "powers that be" to know their name or address.
Many have careers that they aren't prepared to risk by aknowledging they have any connection with, or interest in BDSM. So, maybe we need to think of ways in which people can support Backlash, that doesn't involve them revealing their identity. The Nemesis event for instance.
tiana
AV8R, 08 Nov 2005 18:29:11
Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > well it seemed like a good idea to memo people on ic who are in key labour marginal seats(using the postcode search)... the personal touch to perhaps sway them to write to their MP
> > and ok Tanos wasn't enamoured of the idea... ok girl asked him after posting the thread.... but its for the cause etc... and girl sends so few memos , she must be owed a few...
> > but strangely after only 6 memos her power to memo disappeared!!!
> I've been reading the mails and can see how people want to
> push people into mailing their MP's etc, and i can understand why it needs to be done. However, targetting IC members without the website owners permission is only going to put his, and other people's backs up.
> I think one of the problems is that although people may be sympathetic and supportive and are behind what Backlash is trying to do, they don't want to get personally involved because they don't want the "powers that be" to know their name or address.
> Many have careers that they aren't prepared to risk by aknowledging they have any connection with, or interest in BDSM. So, maybe we need to think of ways in which people can support Backlash, that doesn't involve them revealing their identity. The Nemesis event for instance.
> tiana
I think the main thing that we need to get across (though apparently are not because it keeps coming up)is that you can respond anonymously.
The powers that be do not need to know your name or address.
You do not need to risk your career, if you respond to the consultation anonymously.
When writing letters to your MP, even an anonymous letter from "a constituent too scared to give their name and address for fear of being victimised should this law pass" will be better than nothing.
You can also take the 'free speech' approach... ie, "whilst I personally find these images distasteful, I oppose censorship on the grounds of free speech"
This is a Lib Dem party stance, do you really think all the lib dem party members are now going to be investigated and arrested?
Sorry if this sounds a little frustrated, but there really is absolutely NO valid excuse for not writing to your MP and responding to the consultation.
zak, 08 Nov 2005 20:09:51
Original Message:
-----------------
Tanos Tanos@tanos.org.uk, 08 Nov 2005 20:09:51
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>
> He is a bit of a po-faced plonker, so he would hardly be first at the
> barricades, or so I've heard.
What are YOU doing, barricade-wise? As opposed to printing pamphlets safely
in a cellar?
oh, the usual, writing to my MP, having a link off my website, flyering
everywhere,
getting articles published in support of Backlash - under my own name, not
an alias.
But then, we're all doing what we can. If the loss of whatsname's memo
facility was just
an unfortunate technical hitch then whoops, sorry, you was wronged.
I'm running a free UK BDSM website with 13,000 pictures uploaded for free
by thousands of people in the scene here, many of which are targetted by
that list which has been circulating.
Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?
Whoever they think they can get. SInce you ask. But good luck to you anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
redcat, 08 Nov 2005 21:27:27
Author wrote:
> zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > He is a bit of a po-faced plonker, so he would hardly be first at the
> > barricades, or so I've heard.
> What are YOU doing, barricade-wise? As opposed to printing pamphlets safely
> in a cellar?
> I'm running a free UK BDSM website with 13,000 pictures uploaded for free
> by thousands of people in the scene here, many of which are targetted by
> that list which has been circulating.
> Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?
> That's my fucking barricade. Clear?
(deleted, cause girl forgot to log out!)
*** This message has been edited by redcat on 08 Nov 2005 21:28:35 ***
Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 21:30:47
Author wrote:
> zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > He is a bit of a po-faced plonker, so he would hardly be first at the
> > barricades, or so I've heard.
> What are YOU doing, barricade-wise? As opposed to printing pamphlets safely
> in a cellar?
> I'm running a free UK BDSM website with 13,000 pictures uploaded for free
> by thousands of people in the scene here, many of which are targetted by
> that list which has been circulating.
> Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?
> That's my fucking barricade. Clear?
Not quite. As a publisher and distributor, you are already subject to the Law as stands - OPA and all that. For taking that risk, the community is very grateful.
However, the proposal is about possession, which opens up the field for potential prosecution to many more people.
This is a key point which we have been trying to get across to people unfamiliar with the consultation - not always successfully. For instance, it is probably wrong to think that the proposal would much affect Soho porn shops - since they will simply adjust their product to fit whatever new morality is imposed.
And if the neo's have their way entirely, then of course, the Soho Sex shops will STILL be there....selling 'what the butler saw' style vids.
Regards,
M
> Tanos
Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 21:43:03
Author wrote:
> In message <4847080.1131466500352.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> >But as this cause is SO important, and will likely very negatively impact almost
> >all of those on IC,is there some other way you could help to directly reach the
> >people in marginal areas? Perhaps you could find some way to pass along a
> >message from backlash?""
> How about a banner or even a whole page of information before one logs
> on to the IC site itself?
> >Please realise you are in a unique position to reach people, your membership is
> >in tens of thousands, and you have at least some of the location data that a
> >concerted campaign desperately needs..... and whilst banner ads and news items
> >are good, direct contact (even if it is from you instead of backlash)is many
> >times more effective.
> I'm not sure that Tanos could lawfully use postcode or location data to
> target specific areas, as such could violate the Data Protection Act --
> the information provided by the data subject would not have been used
> for the purpose why it was initially provided.
Neither of the above are breaches per se.
The DPA is fairly straightforward, in its English translation: basically, it says that if you process personal info, then you should not process it in ways in which data subjects (i.e., the individuals to whom that info relates) would object, given you know they would object - or in surprising new ways that they would not expect.
Thus, it is 'reasonable' to spam or direct mail customers of your company without EXPLICIT permission under the DPA, as they would probably expect you to tell them about new products and services.
You allude to some interesting points. First, it is not at all clear that the sort of info that Tanos holds is 'personal info' within the meaning of the DPA.
This has been an interesting old chestnut throughout the life of the DPA. Has meant that I get to process a lot of data 'anonymously' - i.e., with all personal descriptors removed - for research purposes. But that some sources that might seem anonymmous need extra work. Census data, for instance: some randomisation is introduced into releases of census data for research purposes because in some of the small postal areas census'd the fact that someone is a Doctor is sufficient personal identification in and of itself.
Have had this debate many times with IT people and very expensive lawyers: consensus now seems to be that people have overdone it on the DPA and some companies are beginning to row back.
Spamming, however, could be dealt with by other legislation, most likely the Electronic Communications Act - which calls (unlike the DPA) for explicit permission pre-communication.
Two other factors: what redcat appeared to be up to was manual - and probably did not constitute processing (although the latest version of the DPA introduces manual processes as subject to the Act); and one can always go beyond the initial reasons for data being collected providing one has what the legal professiong describe as a 'blinding flash'. That is, you have a sudden realisation that you wish to use data for another purpose than that for which the subjects are aware....and you had no premeditated intention of using it for that purpose.
In THAT circ...as of a couple of years ago.... I was advised by lawyers that one COULD write to subjects on a list and ask their permission for the new use.
Bottom line, frankly, is this. As soon as redcat told me that Tanos had used the dreaded 'spam' word, I sensed that there might be an issue. I see very little realistic probability that individuals on IC would go so far as an IC complaint (that's Information Commissioner in the second instance).
What is much more to the point is the way such a communication might be received - and there I think that Lothario has a few good points.
Regards,
M
> On the other hand, a banner or other advert seeking specific support
> from people in certain named constituencies wouldn't be illegal though
> it could look tacky and could give the false impression that folk living
> elsewhere didn't matter.
> --
> < Paul >
Tanos, 08 Nov 2005 22:10:26
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Author wrote:
>
>>zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>He is a bit of a po-faced plonker, so he would hardly be first at the
>>>barricades, or so I've heard.
>>
>>What are YOU doing, barricade-wise? As opposed to printing pamphlets safely
>>in a cellar?
>>I'm running a free UK BDSM website with 13,000 pictures uploaded for free
>>by thousands of people in the scene here, many of which are targetted by
>>that list which has been circulating.
>>Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?
>>That's my fucking barricade. Clear?
>
> Not quite. As a publisher and distributor, you are already subject to the Law
> as stands - OPA and all that.
The proposals go beyond the OPA though, even though they claim it doesn't: the
OPA has the "deprave and corrupt" test to be administered by a jury, whereas the
government's prefered proposal refers to specific tests based on what is
depicted (and we've seen one list of acts that's being touted.)
I think it's easy to imagine a jury that would consider that images of a severe
caning in a consensual, loving, sexual context would not deprave and corrupt,
whereas possession of such images is likely to be illegal under the proposed
legislation in a reasonably clear cut way.
> However, the proposal is about possession, which opens up the field for
> potential prosecution to many more people.
But as I said "Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?"
The easiest targets are websites hosting the kind of content they disapprove of,
and they explicitly note that the possession offence can be used against
publishers in the consultation document.
Tanos
Amelie, 08 Nov 2005 22:41:43
Tanos ,
Many of us are grateful for all you have done and all you still do. We
appreciate the risks you run on our behalf.
(I have taken down my pics from your site as they would definitely have
fallen foul of the censors! Even though anyone who knows anything about the
scene could tell I was in good hands and blissfully flying.)
Amelie
man
----- Original Message -----
"Tanos" , 08 Nov 2005 22:41:43
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:09 PM
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Author wrote:
>>
>>>zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>He is a bit of a po-faced plonker, so he would hardly be first at the
>>>>barricades, or so I've heard.
>>>
>>>What are YOU doing, barricade-wise? As opposed to printing pamphlets
>>>safely
>>>in a cellar?
>>>I'm running a free UK BDSM website with 13,000 pictures uploaded for free
>>>by thousands of people in the scene here, many of which are targetted by
>>>that list which has been circulating.
>>>Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?
>>>That's my fucking barricade. Clear?
>>
>> Not quite. As a publisher and distributor, you are already subject to the
>> Law
>> as stands - OPA and all that.
>
> The proposals go beyond the OPA though, even though they claim it doesn't:
> the
> OPA has the "deprave and corrupt" test to be administered by a jury,
> whereas the
> government's prefered proposal refers to specific tests based on what is
> depicted (and we've seen one list of acts that's being touted.)
>
> I think it's easy to imagine a jury that would consider that images of a
> severe
> caning in a consensual, loving, sexual context would not deprave and
> corrupt,
> whereas possession of such images is likely to be illegal under the
> proposed
> legislation in a reasonably clear cut way.
>
>> However, the proposal is about possession, which opens up the field for
> > potential prosecution to many more people.
>
> But as I said "Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?"
>
> The easiest targets are websites hosting the kind of content they
> disapprove of,
> and they explicitly note that the possession offence can be used against
> publishers in the consultation document.
>
> Tanos
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3393
>
goodghirl, 08 Nov 2005 23:33:27
Im so at a loss for words on this
This thread was clearly started thinking Tanos was not a member to have a bitch about him. when he had made his reasons for not doing it clear first thing this morning. The Op then announced she was still going too do it and then complains about her memos not being allowed.
come on
I getting really really sick of people here having a pop at the wrong people and doing fuck all to help.
A very fed up gg
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 09 Nov 2005 10:06:27
Author wrote:
> Im so at a loss for words on this
> This thread was clearly started thinking Tanos was not a member to have a bitch about him.
Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat has been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed. Were you not aware of Tanos involvement? When did you first start reading?
>when he had made his reasons for not doing it clear first thing this morning. The Op then announced she was still going too do it and then complains about her memos not being allowed.
> come on
> I getting really really sick of people here having a pop at the wrong people and doing fuck all to help.
> A very fed up gg
Personally, I find this sort of comment pretty unhelpful. I would venture you haven't the faintest what work redcat has been doing on behalf of the campaign - any more than many people on here know specifically what you or adrian or any number of others do.
If individuals are given specific tasks to do, then fair enough: criticise them if they don't do those tasks. Otherwise, it might be more helpful if EVERYONE presumed, absent evidence to the contrary, that everyone else was doing pretty much as much as they can, given all sorts of other pressures, such as work and family.
Regards,
M
Tanos, 09 Nov 2005 10:33:24
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Author wrote:
>
>> Im so at a loss for words on this This thread was clearly started thinking
>> Tanos was not a member to have a
>> bitch about him.
>
> Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat has
> been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed.
So when redcat referred to me on this list as a "po faced plonker" it was
a calculated insult rather than just a two-faced comment? (She was pretending
to be all sweet and innocent on IC and in her memos to me at the same time
as that thread on here.)
This would be a good point for you to stop digging ;)
Tanos
goodghirl, 09 Nov 2005 10:39:05
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat has been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed. Were you not aware of Tanos involvement? When did you first start reading?
Since I announced I was here and getting Involved in fundraising against my better judgement Im sure you rememeber.
Personally, I find this sort of comment pretty unhelpful. I would venture you haven't the faintest what work redcat has been doing on behalf of the campaign - any more than many people on here know specifically what you or adrian or any number of others do.
More unhelpful that publically being told not to do something and then announcing your doing it anyway? I don't actually see where I said redcat wasn't doing anything, Id like to think people did know exactly what I was doing Ive posted about it enough.
If individuals are given specific tasks to do, then fair enough: criticise them if they don't do those tasks. Otherwise, it might be more helpful if EVERYONE presumed, absent evidence to the contrary, that everyone else was doing pretty much as much as they can, given all sorts of other pressures, such as work and family.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 09 Nov 2005 10:59:46
Author wrote:
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Author wrote:
> >
> >> Im so at a loss for words on this This thread was clearly started thinking
> >> Tanos was not a member to have a
> >> bitch about him.
> >
> > Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat has
> > been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed.
> So when redcat referred to me on this list as a "po faced plonker" it was
> a calculated insult rather than just a two-faced comment? (She was pretending
> to be all sweet and innocent on IC and in her memos to me at the same time
> as that thread on here.)
> This would be a good point for you to stop digging ;)
> Tanos
Given your penchant for hair-splitting logic: it is worth noting that redcat did not actually call you that (zak did) - although her follow-up post could be taken as providing some sort of support for that view.
Personally, I think this whole thing is getting a tad overblown. redcat made a judgment call - and got it wrong. she is still sulking a bit because I said that to her.
She thought it would be a good idea to memo people on IC and didn't really understand the degree of principle breached by that - or the amount of offense given. There is no great plot here to show anyone in a bad light and/or to undermine... Just mistake and natural human wiffling (on both sides) about that mistake.
Beyond that, this exchange does raise an interesting point - which is whether, in the interests of campaigning, there ought to be an attempt to build a campaign list, support list, whatever.
Two or three reasons for such a list. There are going to be times when we need to meet en masse (to discuss approaches, or hold a demo): online publicity is OK, up to a point, but still misses loads of people.
And if we eventually decide to mass fundraise....well, that, too, is going to need a much wider and more legitimately available list than we have now.
Not to mention Lobbying, which is what started all this off in the first place.
IC certainly COULD BE the spine for such a list - although equally, there are some good arguments as to why it should not. Data Protection considerations could be circumvented (certainly, I have had legal advice to that effect in the past in similar situations).
But it could be cleaner and neater (as well as less undermining to all online communities) if one just started with a clean slate. It might also - heresy of heresies - be worth contemplating an approach that was not wholly online based, which again argues away from using existing resource.
Regards,
M
clare, 09 Nov 2005 11:09:33
Tanos is obviously right that IC would be an immediate target. Especially for an IWF removal notice.
I don't understand the comment about Backlash being a new SM Pride, because I'm not aware of whatever the background is to that comment. All I can say is that whatever it means, I am not knowingly part of it.
I think it is very regrettable that there appears to be hostility between Tanos and some people who post here. I don't understand the source of it (both ways).
Tanos of all people has a huge amount to contribute to the opposition to this proposal (and I'm not referring to the use of IC). I've been surprised to see how little he has posted to these boards. If that is because Backlash is the New SM Pride (whatever that means), then that has to be addressed.
Clare
Author wrote:
>
> The proposals go beyond the OPA though, even though they claim it doesn't: the
> OPA has the "deprave and corrupt" test to be administered by a jury, whereas the
> government's prefered proposal refers to specific tests based on what is
> depicted (and we've seen one list of acts that's being touted.)
> I think it's easy to imagine a jury that would consider that images of a severe
> caning in a consensual, loving, sexual context would not deprave and corrupt,
> whereas possession of such images is likely to be illegal under the proposed
> legislation in a reasonably clear cut way.
> > However, the proposal is about possession, which opens up the field for
> > potential prosecution to many more people.
> But as I said "Who do you think these neopuritans will target first?"
> The easiest targets are websites hosting the kind of content they disapprove of,
> and they explicitly note that the possession offence can be used against
> publishers in the consultation document.
> Tanos
backdooruk, 09 Nov 2005 11:20:07
I think by colouring this as something not wise to do because spam upsets a website owner misses the main point. This is not a wise tactic because spam, upsets those people who get it. No matter how worthy a cause, if I get email or a memo form a stranger saying I should be doing such and such it goes straight in the bin and makes me annoyed enough to feel more antipathetic to the cause being promoted, or at least to the organisation doing the spam in the first place
I think backlash should think very carefully about whether it wants to be known as a spamming organisation. It’s a technique that so many people dislike it’s likely to loose us more friends than we would have a chance of making.
- Chris
Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 12:59:22
In message <4371D06B.2060404@tanos.org.uk>, Tanos
wrote:
>manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Author wrote:
>>
>>> Im so at a loss for words on this This thread was clearly started thinking
>>> Tanos was not a member to have a
>>> bitch about him.
>>
>> Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat has
>> been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed.
>
>So when redcat referred to me on this list as a "po faced plonker" it was
>a calculated insult rather than just a two-faced comment?
Whichever, she only indicated thereby that she'd never met you.
--
< Paul >
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 13:11:37
Author wrote:
> I think by colouring this as something not wise to do because spam upsets a website owner misses the main point. This is not a wise tactic because spam, upsets those people who get it. No matter how worthy a cause, if I get email or a memo form a stranger saying I should be doing such and such it goes straight in the bin and makes me annoyed enough to feel more antipathetic to the cause being promoted, or at least to the organisation doing the spam in the first place
> I think backlash should think very carefully about whether it wants to be known as a spamming organisation. It’s a technique that so many people dislike it’s likely to loose us more friends than we would have a chance of making.
> - Chris
>
>
Perhaps, but I doubt a real member writing 10-15 personal memo's a day to people would ever fall under the "spam" definition, particularly when that member is offering to work with people directly, help them get in touch with others who can, etc, etc.
There is clearly a need to do a far better job in reaching people.... I have heard the number of 75,000 people on IC, yet only around 300 have joined backlash group, and only around 100 have been discussing the subject on IC.
Perhaps you have a better idea for how to reach out to the community and actually get people motivated and involved?
And regardless, there is a big difference between mass spam, and personalised appeals for help from someone that is known to you on some level. (like Tanos is to all on IC)
If I use a site, I would have no problem with the site owner sending an email or memo to me, on any subject he felt worthwhile.
I belong to several politics sites, that have a "memo" or "mail" feature, and I regularly get unsolicited messages from various regular posters, admins, moderators, etc, on a variety of topics ranging from good causes they think I may be interested in from my post history, to topics I may find interesting, to appeals for support or funding.
I don't consider any of them "spam".
zak, 09 Nov 2005 13:17:24
Original Message:
-----------------
Tanos Tanos@tanos.org.uk, 09 Nov 2005 13:17:24
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Author wrote:
>
>> Im so at a loss for words on this This thread was clearly started
thinking
>> Tanos was not a member to have a
>> bitch about him.
>
> Really? Since Tanos first posted on here back in September - and redcat
has
> been reading the board since it started, no such presumption existed.
So when redcat referred to me on this list as a "po faced plonker"
He/She didn't call you that. I did.
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 09 Nov 2005 13:18:24
Original Message:
-----------------
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 13:18:24
Tanos is obviously right that IC would be an immediate target. Especially
for an IWF
removal notice.
I don't understand the comment about Backlash being a new SM Pride, because
I'm not aware
of whatever the background is to that comment. All I can say is that
whatever it means, I
am not knowingly part of it.
I think it is very regrettable that there appears to be hostility between
Tanos and some
people who post here. I don't understand the source of it (both ways).
Tanos of all people has a huge amount to contribute to the opposition to
this proposal
(and I'm not referring to the use of IC). I've been surprised to see how
little he has
posted to these boards. If that is because Backlash is the New SM Pride
(whatever that
means), then that has to be addressed.
Clare
Oh, flip. Pass this poster a wooden sp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
goodghirl, 09 Nov 2005 13:24:10
I think perhaps you're missing the point
that the Op announced what she was going to do and was told not too and then announced she was still going to do it and started too.
And then came away from IC and complained about it on a different board
Perhaps, but I doubt a real member writing 10-15 personal memo's a day to people would ever fall under the "spam" definition, particularly when that member is offering to work with people directly, help them get in touch with others who can, etc, etc.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
backdooruk, 09 Nov 2005 14:08:03
AV8R wrote:
> I belong to several politics sites, that have a "memo" or "mail" feature, and I regularly get unsolicited messages from various regular posters, admins, moderators, etc, on a variety of topics ranging from good causes they think I may be interested in from my post history, to topics I may find interesting, to appeals for support or funding.
> I don't consider any of them "spam".
It's not the fact that memos are unsolicited or their subject that is the problem, it's the fact they are circulars. Several political boards I have been a member of specifically forbid circular memos precisely because it’s so annoying. Back in the days when netiquette meant anything circular messages where one of the things that could easily get you chucked off a list. I’m a little surprised if things have changed so much that there are now lists that encourage that behaviour.
Let’s be honest about this, if we though spamming was a good thing we’d be better off spamming the email address of *all* the people we could find in a marginal constituency, not just the kinksters. But then I think we all know how much harm that would do us.
- Chris
Manniq, 09 Nov 2005 14:23:43
Hmmm....I think we are getting a little hung up on a word, rather than looking at the underlying question of what should happen, what should be done.
In developing media contacts, I have a 'standard e-mail' that I tend to use. However, I phone first and then follow up with the e-mail: and where the individual has made comments that are at odds with the standard version or which lead me to think I need to develop the standard, then I do that. Its a circular, with ragged edges.!
I also use standard paragraphs, on the grounds that it is hgihly wasteful to re-invent my introduction of Backlash, or whatever, every time. I therefore tend to see a 'personalised circular' as not quite in the spam category. But let's let that pass.
I agree with you that the issue here, in the end, is how people receive stuff, rather than the feelings of the web site owner: I brought that up simply to highlight where I thought the communication process had gone wrong. Tanos used words that I would have interpreted fairly instantly as 'Beware: Here BE Dragons!' redcat did not interpret those words as I would have. That's backwards, the past, and some vague attempt to explain an incident.
av8r is looking forward to the future. There is a large base of bdsm 'supporters' out there, some of whom reside on the IC database. Is there ANY legitimate way in which one could use that base to promote action, with Tanos' say-so? That strikes me as the valid question here.
I know that you say how much you dislike 'spam' - but this is what I mean by being hung up on terminology. I have run research groups in which we have asked people what their attitude is to communications they receive. Universally, they don't like spam/junk mail/similar. Equally universally, when they are 'spammed' or 'junk mailed' with something that they see as relevant to them, they don't mind in the least.
Again, av8r has a point: members of certain sorts of groups have an 'expectation' that they will receive communications on certain topics. The key is relevance.
If you look at IC - and perhaps I should stop talking about IC, since this debate applies to ALL UK bdsm resources - what is the expectation of individuals on there as to what IC (or other group) is for and what may happen to them as a result of being on there?
Maybe it is primarily a chat place and it would be going too far to treat it as a potential activist pool. Maybe not.
Perhaps one way forward is to ask the owners of boards, web sites, etc. to add a question to the sign-up form asking individuals if they would mind receiving correspondence with regards to bdsm activism (over and above the social and dating side).
Dunno.
But perhaps if we can rewind this a bit and ask the basic question of how we, as an organisation can and should connect with the alleged 4 million bdsm afficionadoes 'out there' that would not be a bad idea.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> AV8R wrote:
> > I belong to several politics sites, that have a "memo" or "mail" feature, and I regularly get unsolicited messages from various regular posters, admins, moderators, etc, on a variety of topics ranging from good causes they think I may be interested in from my post history, to topics I may find interesting, to appeals for support or funding.
> > I don't consider any of them "spam".
> It's not the fact that memos are unsolicited or their subject that is the problem, it's the fact they are circulars. Several political boards I have been a member of specifically forbid circular memos precisely because it’s so annoying. Back in the days when netiquette meant anything circular messages where one of the things that could easily get you chucked off a list. I’m a little surprised if things have changed so much that there are now lists that encourage that behaviour.
> Let’s be honest about this, if we though spamming was a good thing we’d be better off spamming the email address of *all* the people we could find in a marginal constituency, not just the kinksters. But then I think we all know how much harm that would do us.
> - Chris
>
>
Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 14:45:32
On 11/9/05, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hmmm....I think we are getting a little hung up on a word, rather than looking at the underlying question of what should happen, what should be done.
Society has a habit of getting hung up on words. Freedom, equality,
justice... and spam.
Fortunately, these discussions have already been had with regards to
spam and there is an agreed definition:
http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
The only problem is that people use the word "spam" without either
referring to the discussions that have been had on this issue, or
considering what the fundamental problems are with spam that lead it
to be identified as a unique phenomenon.
Just because there is widespread ignorance of the issues doesn't mean
that the issues are poorly defined or haven't been well considered.
> I know that you say how much you dislike 'spam' - but this is what I mean by being hung up on terminology. I have run research groups in which we have asked people what their attitude is to communications they receive. Universally, they don't like spam/junk mail/similar. Equally universally, when they are 'spammed' or 'junk mailed' with something that they see as relevant to them, they don't mind in the least.
Some people enjoy being whipped and caned by someone that they trust
and in a way that they agree to. Others do not. The issue is "consent,
not content".
I think it's generally accepted that consent has to be obtained
_before_ something is done, not obtained retrospectively. Also, it
must be explicit on the part of the recipient, not inferred or assumed
by the recipient's previous behaviour, membership of a group,
demographic, etc.
> Again, av8r has a point: members of certain sorts of groups have an 'expectation' that they will receive communications on certain topics. The key is relevance.
No, the key is consent. If I've agreed to receive something, it's not
spam, even if the same message is sent to a million people who have
also agreed. If I haven't agreed to receive it, it's spam if it's sent
to more than one person.
> Perhaps one way forward is to ask the owners of boards, web sites, etc. to add a question to the sign-up form asking individuals if they would mind receiving correspondence with regards to bdsm activism (over and above the social and dating side).
Technically, any method for getting prior consent would be legitimate.
It would be down to the co-operation of individual webmasters how they
chose to handle such an issue. You could end up with a long shopping
list of potential options that people could choose to opt into. But
you would also end up with a problem of definition - "BDSM activism",
for example, could cover a wide range of campaigns, some of which an
individual might support, others they'd be indifferent to, others they
would oppose, whether they understood them correctly or not.
And here we get back to the fundamental issue about expectations.
Public forums exist so that people can have public discussions. People
can choose what to read and when to read it. Those that have a general
interest in BDSM will read the boards when they choose to do so and
ignore the messages that don't interest them.
Private communication channels such as email and PMs are, oddly
enough, for personal communications. If they are to work as such,
users need to keep control of their inboxes by ensuring that the
messages they receive are ones they consent to.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
zak, 09 Nov 2005 16:40:24
Do you have a problem with other people expressing their opinions if you
just don't happen
to share those opinions, or something?
z
Original Message:
-----------------
goodghirl goodghirl@btinternet.com, 09 Nov 2005 16:40:24
I think perhaps you're missing the point
that the Op announced what she was going to do and was told not too and
then announced she
was still going to do it and started too.
And then came away from IC and complained about it on a different board here>
Perhaps, but I doubt a real member writing 10-15 personal memo's a day to
people would
ever fall under the "spam" definition, particularly when that member is
offering to work
with people directly, help them get in touch with others who can, etc, etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
goodghirl, 09 Nov 2005 17:04:04
No I don't obviously you have a problem with me sharing my opinion you don't share
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:Do you have a problem with other people expressing their opinions if you
just don't happen
to share those opinions, or something?
z
Original Message:
-----------------
goodghirl goodghirl@btinternet.com, 09 Nov 2005 17:04:04
I think perhaps you're missing the point
that the Op announced what she was going to do and was told not too and
then announced she
was still going to do it and started too.
And then came away from IC and complained about it on a different board here>
Perhaps, but I doubt a real member writing 10-15 personal memo's a day to
people would
ever fall under the "spam" definition, particularly when that member is
offering to work
with people directly, help them get in touch with others who can, etc, etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3442
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Graham Marsden, 09 Nov 2005 17:10:51
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> I know that you say how much you dislike 'spam' - but this is what
> I mean by being hung up on terminology. I have run research groups
> in which we have asked people what their attitude is to
> communications they receive. Universally, they don't like
> spam/junk mail/similar. Equally universally, when they are
> 'spammed' or 'junk mailed' with something that they see as
> relevant to them, they don't mind in the least.
I'd just add to this that I've sent information on Backlash to everyone
on the mailing list for my business.
I've received no complaints, nor has anyone left my mailing list because
of it, indeed I've received several mails from people saying that
they're glad I brought this to their attention and that they intend to
send in responses objecting to the proposals.
As you say, it's *how* it's done and *why* it's done that's important,
but ultimately the choice of *whether* to do it is down to the list
operator.
Cheers,
Graham.
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 17:50:08
So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish what we need to do?
ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain geographical areas with a personalised message.
Chris, 09 Nov 2005 18:06:54
Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
----Original Message Follows----
av8r0344@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 18:06:54
So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
what we need to do?
ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
geographical areas with a personalised message.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 18:40:20
Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
Av8r
Author wrote:
> Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> ----Original Message Follows----
: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 18:40:20
> Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> what we need to do?
> ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> geographical areas with a personalised message.
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
Thunder, 09 Nov 2005 18:53:53
In message , chris m
writes
>Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
>if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
>this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
>allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
>developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
>also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
>alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
>themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
>even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
Sorry I do not understand this at all and wonder if everyone knows about
Informed Consent.
There are postings to many "boards" on Informed Consent (by topic and by
area). There are weblogs (I have just done one myself on this issue and
have done others)
Most people who read or visit Informed Consent are, or should be aware,
of the issues by now.
I personally have sent various postings on my 1,100+ member MSN Group
which have been productive (and have also posted to many Yahoo Groups)
Tanos has also, as he says, produced his own banner for the site to
click through (I still don't know why his requests for a banner went
unanswered but that's something else)
Via Informed Consent goodghirl has publicised her Nemesis fund raising
evening, SnowdropExplodes has mentioned his.
Memos, though, especially targeted ones, are to my mind intrusive.
--
^Thunder^
Thunder, 09 Nov 2005 18:58:04
In message , chris m
writes
>Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
>if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
>this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
>allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
>developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
>also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
>alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
>themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
>even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
Sorry I do not understand this at all and wonder if everyone knows about
Informed Consent.
There are postings to many "boards" on Informed Consent (by topic and by
area). There are weblogs (I have just done one myself on this issue and
have done others)
Most people who read or visit Informed Consent are, or should be aware,
of the issues by now.
I personally have sent various postings on my 1,100+ member MSN Group
which have been productive (and have also posted to many Yahoo Groups)
Tanos has also, as he says, produced his own banner for the site to
click through (I still don't know why his requests for a banner went
unanswered but that's something else)
Via Informed Consent goodghirl has publicised her Nemesis fund raising
evening, SnowdropExplodes has mentioned his.
Memos, though, especially targeted ones, are to my mind intrusive.
--
^Thunder^
Thunder, 09 Nov 2005 19:15:29
In message , ^Thunder^
writes
>
>There are postings to many "boards" on Informed Consent (by topic and by
>area). There are weblogs (I have just done one myself on this issue and
>have done others)
By the way.
I have just posted to the "Activism Board" on Informed Consent a
reference to one of the photos in my IC photo album pointing out that
possession of that image (it is a photo I took of someone a year ago
bound and gagged) would merit up to 5 years in jail if this law is
passed (As would others in my album and on other sites I have photos
taken by /featuring me )
--
^Thunder^
Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 21:11:23
In message , chris m
wrote:
>Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
>if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
>this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
>allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
>developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
>also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
>alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
>themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
>even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
King's horse?
I'm not sure that we should wait until HRH Prince Brian assumes the
throne...
--
< Paul >
Chris, 09 Nov 2005 21:22:37
Perhaps you missed the origin and content of this thread? It started
because of an idea that it would be fruitful to contact people living in
marginal consituencies, to get them to write to their MP, which had the
unfortunate effect of irritating Tanos.
My suggestion (in response to av8r's challenge to come up with "an
alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish what we need to
do") was a means of building a contact list that can be used whenever it is
needed over the next however often, without risking being classed as spam,
without being perceived as abusing any site.
Someone asked a question (which I believe I left attached to my posting so
that it was clear why I was posting), because there was a perceived problem,
and lots of negativity but no solutions (plus ca change, plus c'est la meme
chose). I suggested an answer (which would only differ in any material
respect from you posting to your MSN group by hitting 70,000 people instead
of 1,100). Take it or leave it.
And FYI, I do know a fair bit about Informed Consent, certainly enough to
know that there are people posting who think that they can't get involved,
or approach their MP because of personal circumstances and the risk of
outing themself. You may have missed this particular posting only
yesterday. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism/57208/0/#0
Unfortunately, as the posting was responded to promptly, it didn't hang
around long enough to get much visibility.
----Original Message Follows----
^Thunder^ , 09 Nov 2005 21:22:37
In message , chris m
writes
>Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges
>there)
>if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
>this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
>allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
>developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
>also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
>alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
>themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
>even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
Sorry I do not understand this at all and wonder if everyone knows about
Informed Consent.
There are postings to many "boards" on Informed Consent (by topic and by
area). There are weblogs (I have just done one myself on this issue and
have done others)
Most people who read or visit Informed Consent are, or should be aware,
of the issues by now.
I personally have sent various postings on my 1,100+ member MSN Group
which have been productive (and have also posted to many Yahoo Groups)
Tanos has also, as he says, produced his own banner for the site to
click through (I still don't know why his requests for a banner went
unanswered but that's something else)
Via Informed Consent goodghirl has publicised her Nemesis fund raising
evening, SnowdropExplodes has mentioned his.
Memos, though, especially targeted ones, are to my mind intrusive.
--
^Thunder^
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3471
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 21:54:12
FYI, I do know a fair bit about Informed Consent, certainly enough to
> know that there are people posting who think that they can't get involved,
> or approach their MP because of personal circumstances and the risk of
> outing themself. You may have missed this particular posting only
> yesterday. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism/57208/0/#0
> Unfortunately, as the posting was responded to promptly, it didn't hang
> around long enough to get much visibility.
Which brings me to the point of direct contact campaigns.
I am willing to bet less than 5% of the people on IC have a clear understanding of this campaign, and how/why they need to help.
Banners, posts on threads, etc, are incredibly inneficient methods of getting the word out.
Direct mail/email is many, many times more effective.
Manniq, 09 Nov 2005 23:25:10
No real DPA (or ECA) issues with chris' suggestion. Tanos is the Data Controller for his list and therefore has the right to ask those on his list if they are prepared to extend the permission given to mail them/process their data for 'new purposes'.
The way chris phrases itis basically an opt-in, which is the required permission level.
It would be up to Tanos whether he sought permission to communicate further with individuals re. the consultation doc campaing/Backlash (which probably is not necessary since is probably governed already by pre-existing expectation...but doesn't hurt to ask) or whether he asked them if they minded their info being used by a third party (us).
In the latter instance, two options exist: him processing his data on our behalf, with only responses eventually wending their way to us (low level of permission needed); or him passing out a selected list for us to process (high level of permission needed).
In order of 'permissions' you would need Tanos permission first to process what is essentially his database - and then the permission of each individual on that database for further processing of their data above and beyond what they might currently expect.
Thereafter (and only after) do issues of Backlash DPA come into play.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
> Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
> In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
> Av8r
> Author wrote:
> > Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> > if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> > this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> > allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> > developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> > also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> > alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> > themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> > even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> > ----Original Message Follows----
om: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 23:25:10
> > Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> > So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> > come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> > what we need to do?
> > ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> > geographical areas with a personalised message.
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
Thunder, 10 Nov 2005 02:23:30
In message , chris m
writes
>Perhaps you missed the origin and content of this thread? It started
>because of an idea that it would be fruitful to contact people living in
>marginal consituencies, to get them to write to their MP, which had the
>unfortunate effect of irritating Tanos.
Nope I have followed this thread in its entirety
There is nothing wrong with a suggestion - the irritant was the "direct
mailing" by way of memos .
Whether, in fact, threatening MPs in marginal constituencies is a wise
move anyway is another story.
What I find more worrying is, what someone just added to a posting of
mine, that she would like to "say something" but there is nothing on the
Backlash site by way of a sample objection she could base hers on (as
others have said to me)
--
^Thunder^
goodghirl, 10 Nov 2005 07:50:02
just so Im straight on this - So Tanos would need to send out a memo to people asking there permission to send them a memo?
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:No real DPA (or ECA) issues with chris' suggestion. Tanos is the Data Controller for his list and therefore has the right to ask those on his list if they are prepared to extend the permission given to mail them/process their data for 'new purposes'.
The way chris phrases itis basically an opt-in, which is the required permission level.
It would be up to Tanos whether he sought permission to communicate further with individuals re. the consultation doc campaing/Backlash (which probably is not necessary since is probably governed already by pre-existing expectation...but doesn't hurt to ask) or whether he asked them if they minded their info being used by a third party (us).
In the latter instance, two options exist: him processing his data on our behalf, with only responses eventually wending their way to us (low level of permission needed); or him passing out a selected list for us to process (high level of permission needed).
In order of 'permissions' you would need Tanos permission first to process what is essentially his database - and then the permission of each individual on that database for further processing of their data above and beyond what they might currently expect.
Thereafter (and only after) do issues of Backlash DPA come into play.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
> Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
> In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
> Av8r
> Author wrote:
> > Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> > if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> > this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> > allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> > developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> > also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> > alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> > themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> > even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> > ----Original Message Follows----
om: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 10 Nov 2005 07:50:02
> > Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> > So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> > come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> > what we need to do?
> > ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> > geographical areas with a personalised message.
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3488
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 10 Nov 2005 09:38:46
Sort of.
What the UK structure of laws on Data Protection and Electronic Communication says is that in order to communicate with people - where that communication requires that you process data - you need their permission before you do so.
The nature of that permission is governed differently for different media: so phone, SMS, e-mail comes under the Electronic Comms Act (2003), whilst stuff like direct mail would come under the DPA. Confusingly, PROCESSING of data which included e-mails for purposes other than communicating is likely to come under the DPA. I digress.
The strongest levels of permission are needed for electronic comms. So, if I want to bulk mail a list of business contacts, I need to have their positive permission to do so in advance. Usually, that is gained by including a clause explaining why they might be mailed in the Terms and Conditions for a site and asking that they opt in to those Ts and Cs.
Now, it might be that Tanos already has a clause somewhere in his Ts and Cs that states that 'members of this site may receive communications from time to time about matters of interst to the bdsm community'. If he has such a clause, there is no issue: he would already be covered.
But if he hasn't, he can't just start e-mailing them.
The Law recognises that this might be a silly position. Someone could put together a list for one purpose...circumstances change...and then they would never be able to use that list for anything else. So the DPA recognised an event that it characterised as (don't laugh!) a 'blinding flash' - whereby a list owner suddenly realised he might wish to mail people for purposes other than those for which permission already existed.
In such circs, it is permissible to write to those individuals ONCE AND ONCE ONLY to seek their permission for the new purpose - and you would be in breach of the Act if it could be shown this was your aim all along.
In English: Tanos can only write to his own list for purposes already made clear to them. However, if he wishes to write to them for a new purpose, he is allowed to write to them and ask if that is OK....which is sort of exactly what you appear to have understood.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> just so Im straight on this - So Tanos would need to send out a memo to people asking there permission to send them a memo?
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:No real DPA (or ECA) issues with chris' suggestion. Tanos is the Data Controller for his list and therefore has the right to ask those on his list if they are prepared to extend the permission given to mail them/process their data for 'new purposes'.
> The way chris phrases itis basically an opt-in, which is the required permission level.
> It would be up to Tanos whether he sought permission to communicate further with individuals re. the consultation doc campaing/Backlash (which probably is not necessary since is probably governed already by pre-existing expectation...but doesn't hurt to ask) or whether he asked them if they minded their info being used by a third party (us).
> In the latter instance, two options exist: him processing his data on our behalf, with only responses eventually wending their way to us (low level of permission needed); or him passing out a selected list for us to process (high level of permission needed).
> In order of 'permissions' you would need Tanos permission first to process what is essentially his database - and then the permission of each individual on that database for further processing of their data above and beyond what they might currently expect.
> Thereafter (and only after) do issues of Backlash DPA come into play.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
> > Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
> > In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
> > Av8r
> > Author wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> > > if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> > > this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> > > allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> > > developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> > > also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> > > alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> > > themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> > > even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> > > ----Original Message Follows----
From: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 10 Nov 2005 09:38:46
> > > Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> > > So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> > > come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> > > what we need to do?
> > > ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> > > geographical areas with a personalised message.
> > > --
> > > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > > Report abuse
> > > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3488
Chris, 10 Nov 2005 09:53:04
On the front (admittedly rather "busy") page of the Backlash site is a link
to sample letters to MPs. It's in the 7th line down in the second
paragraph.
----Original Message Follows----
^Thunder^ , 10 Nov 2005 09:53:04
In message , chris m
writes
>Perhaps you missed the origin and content of this thread? It started
>because of an idea that it would be fruitful to contact people living in
>marginal consituencies, to get them to write to their MP, which had the
>unfortunate effect of irritating Tanos.
Nope I have followed this thread in its entirety
There is nothing wrong with a suggestion - the irritant was the "direct
mailing" by way of memos .
Whether, in fact, threatening MPs in marginal constituencies is a wise
move anyway is another story.
What I find more worrying is, what someone just added to a posting of
mine, that she would like to "say something" but there is nothing on the
Backlash site by way of a sample objection she could base hers on (as
others have said to me)
--
^Thunder^
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3494
Seraf, 10 Nov 2005 10:51:00
I don't really post on this forum much but follow what is going on. I am
interested that you are discussing using the IC site, however the person who
insulted Tanos in the first place, does not yet appear to have offered an
apology. A personal apology might be a really good place to start if you
expect to have any real use of IC.
Just a thought.
S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
demolitionred, 10 Nov 2005 10:56:38
Manniq wrote:
There is a large base of bdsm 'supporters' out there, some of whom reside on the IC database. Is there ANY legitimate way in which one could use that base to promote action, with Tanos' say-so? That strikes me as the valid question here.
The only person who knows the answer to that is Tanos. By ignoring him, insulting him and dismissing his efforts or his reasoning, people here have done very little to further our cause.
what a waste when we have someone who is onside and a dedicated activist.
I think it would be better to take this offboard and ask Tanos. Don't you?
Manniq, 10 Nov 2005 11:03:59
I rather think that was what I was implying: the only person who can provide the answer is Tanos. ergo, if we wish to use it, we should ask.
We disagree to agree!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Manniq wrote:
> There is a large base of bdsm 'supporters' out there, some of whom reside on the IC database. Is there ANY legitimate way in which one could use that base to promote action, with Tanos' say-so? That strikes me as the valid question here.
> The only person who knows the answer to that is Tanos. By ignoring him, insulting him and dismissing his efforts or his reasoning, people here have done very little to further our cause.
> what a waste when we have someone who is onside and a dedicated activist.
> I think it would be better to take this offboard and ask Tanos. Don't you?
goodghirl, 10 Nov 2005 12:29:04
So he spams his members and not us?
Is this some joke and Im missing it?
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
Sort of.
What the UK structure of laws on Data Protection and Electronic Communication says is that in order to communicate with people - where that communication requires that you process data - you need their permission before you do so.
The nature of that permission is governed differently for different media: so phone, SMS, e-mail comes under the Electronic Comms Act (2003), whilst stuff like direct mail would come under the DPA. Confusingly, PROCESSING of data which included e-mails for purposes other than communicating is likely to come under the DPA. I digress.
The strongest levels of permission are needed for electronic comms. So, if I want to bulk mail a list of business contacts, I need to have their positive permission to do so in advance. Usually, that is gained by including a clause explaining why they might be mailed in the Terms and Conditions for a site and asking that they opt in to those Ts and Cs.
Now, it might be that Tanos already has a clause somewhere in his Ts and Cs that states that 'members of this site may receive communications from time to time about matters of interst to the bdsm community'. If he has such a clause, there is no issue: he would already be covered.
But if he hasn't, he can't just start e-mailing them.
The Law recognises that this might be a silly position. Someone could put together a list for one purpose...circumstances change...and then they would never be able to use that list for anything else. So the DPA recognised an event that it characterised as (don't laugh!) a 'blinding flash' - whereby a list owner suddenly realised he might wish to mail people for purposes other than those for which permission already existed.
In such circs, it is permissible to write to those individuals ONCE AND ONCE ONLY to seek their permission for the new purpose - and you would be in breach of the Act if it could be shown this was your aim all along.
In English: Tanos can only write to his own list for purposes already made clear to them. However, if he wishes to write to them for a new purpose, he is allowed to write to them and ask if that is OK....which is sort of exactly what you appear to have understood.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> just so Im straight on this - So Tanos would need to send out a memo to people asking there permission to send them a memo?
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:No real DPA (or ECA) issues with chris' suggestion. Tanos is the Data Controller for his list and therefore has the right to ask those on his list if they are prepared to extend the permission given to mail them/process their data for 'new purposes'.
> The way chris phrases itis basically an opt-in, which is the required permission level.
> It would be up to Tanos whether he sought permission to communicate further with individuals re. the consultation doc campaing/Backlash (which probably is not necessary since is probably governed already by pre-existing expectation...but doesn't hurt to ask) or whether he asked them if they minded their info being used by a third party (us).
> In the latter instance, two options exist: him processing his data on our behalf, with only responses eventually wending their way to us (low level of permission needed); or him passing out a selected list for us to process (high level of permission needed).
> In order of 'permissions' you would need Tanos permission first to process what is essentially his database - and then the permission of each individual on that database for further processing of their data above and beyond what they might currently expect.
> Thereafter (and only after) do issues of Backlash DPA come into play.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
> > Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
> > In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
> > Av8r
> > Author wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> > > if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> > > this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> > > allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> > > developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> > > also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> > > alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> > > themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> > > even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> > > ----Original Message Follows----
From: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 10 Nov 2005 12:29:04
> > > Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> > > So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> > > come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> > > what we need to do?
> > > ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> > > geographical areas with a personalised message.
> > > --
> > > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > > Report abuse
> > > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3488
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3500
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:52
so will you ask him?
Manniq, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:55
Author wrote:
> So he spams his members and not us?
Er, no: HE doesn't spam his members. He either ALREADY has the right to write to them in respect of this campaign or under existing UK law he has the right to write to them and ask them if he may do so. Those are the two options open to him.
Both are compliant within the UK.
Those who reside overseas MAY be subject to different laws (depends on whether the law that applies is the law of the country where processing takes place or where the recipient lives).
The question of 'spam' is something of a red herring - because all this talks about is mailing with consent - whereas the UK Law is much more explicit about what constitutes consent and in what circumstances one may consider oneself to have it.
> Is this some joke and Im missing it?
Not really: DPA legislation is complicated and, in some circumstances, leads to results that one might consider to be ludicrous. For instance, if you were married, you can't ring up a company and ask them to stop mailing your husband because he has died - even though common sense might dictate that one should be able to.
I know that one from bitter experience, because I was occupying the Data Protection chair in a company that did just that, thinking this would be the most sympathetic way to treat an individual. Turned out to be a hoax call....and one of the individuals concerned promptly initiated a law suit against the company which our lawyers advised was likely to need £50k to make go away.
Luckily, it was settled out of court.
Regards,
M
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Sort of.
> What the UK structure of laws on Data Protection and Electronic Communication says is that in order to communicate with people - where that communication requires that you process data - you need their permission before you do so.
> The nature of that permission is governed differently for different media: so phone, SMS, e-mail comes under the Electronic Comms Act (2003), whilst stuff like direct mail would come under the DPA. Confusingly, PROCESSING of data which included e-mails for purposes other than communicating is likely to come under the DPA. I digress.
> The strongest levels of permission are needed for electronic comms. So, if I want to bulk mail a list of business contacts, I need to have their positive permission to do so in advance. Usually, that is gained by including a clause explaining why they might be mailed in the Terms and Conditions for a site and asking that they opt in to those Ts and Cs.
> Now, it might be that Tanos already has a clause somewhere in his Ts and Cs that states that 'members of this site may receive communications from time to time about matters of interst to the bdsm community'. If he has such a clause, there is no issue: he would already be covered.
> But if he hasn't, he can't just start e-mailing them.
> The Law recognises that this might be a silly position. Someone could put together a list for one purpose...circumstances change...and then they would never be able to use that list for anything else. So the DPA recognised an event that it characterised as (don't laugh!) a 'blinding flash' - whereby a list owner suddenly realised he might wish to mail people for purposes other than those for which permission already existed.
> In such circs, it is permissible to write to those individuals ONCE AND ONCE ONLY to seek their permission for the new purpose - and you would be in breach of the Act if it could be shown this was your aim all along.
> In English: Tanos can only write to his own list for purposes already made clear to them. However, if he wishes to write to them for a new purpose, he is allowed to write to them and ask if that is OK....which is sort of exactly what you appear to have understood.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > just so Im straight on this - So Tanos would need to send out a memo to people asking there permission to send them a memo?
> > manniq@hotmail.com wrote:No real DPA (or ECA) issues with chris' suggestion. Tanos is the Data Controller for his list and therefore has the right to ask those on his list if they are prepared to extend the permission given to mail them/process their data for 'new purposes'.
> > The way chris phrases itis basically an opt-in, which is the required permission level.
> > It would be up to Tanos whether he sought permission to communicate further with individuals re. the consultation doc campaing/Backlash (which probably is not necessary since is probably governed already by pre-existing expectation...but doesn't hurt to ask) or whether he asked them if they minded their info being used by a third party (us).
> > In the latter instance, two options exist: him processing his data on our behalf, with only responses eventually wending their way to us (low level of permission needed); or him passing out a selected list for us to process (high level of permission needed).
> > In order of 'permissions' you would need Tanos permission first to process what is essentially his database - and then the permission of each individual on that database for further processing of their data above and beyond what they might currently expect.
> > Thereafter (and only after) do issues of Backlash DPA come into play.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Thats a good idea, presumably also asking all the member organisations of backlash to do the same thing........
> > > Though probably should wait until backlash has a formal, legal organisation and structure so as to be able to reassure people re their data protection.
> > > In the meantime, it seems you are suggesting something similar to what has been discussed, ie, to ask Tanos (or any other list holders) to contact individuals directly via a personalised circular....
> > > Av8r
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Perhaps we should ask Tanos (if we've not entirely burned our bridges there)
> > > > if he would send a personal circular to people stressing the importance of
> > > > this and inviting people to (voluntarily) provide an email address (or to
> > > > allow themselves to be sent an IC memo) to be contacted regarding key
> > > > developments in the fight. This not only gets around the spam issue, it
> > > > also builds an email database that can be used repeatedly, with care, to
> > > > alert people to when we need them to submit to the consultation, chain
> > > > themselves to railings, throw themselves in front of the King's horse, or
> > > > even vote against their MP in a marginal seat...
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> From: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:55
> > > > Subject: Re: [backlash] so much for that idea
> > > > So can those who believe unsolicited approaches are "spam", please try and
> > > > come up with an alternative, viable, workable solution that will accomplish
> > > > what we need to do?
> > > > ie, reach the community, and specifically target individuals in certain
> > > > geographical areas with a personalised message.
> > > > --
> > > > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > > > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > > > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > > > Report abuse
> > > > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3457
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3488
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3500
goodghirl, 10 Nov 2005 13:12:23
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
Er, no: HE doesn't spam his members. He either ALREADY has the right to write to them in respect of this campaign or under existing UK law he has the right to write to them and ask them if he may do so. Those are the two options open to him.
Both are compliant within the UK.
Those who reside overseas MAY be subject to different laws (depends on whether the law that applies is the law of the country where processing takes place or where the recipient lives).
The question of 'spam' is something of a red herring - because all this talks about is mailing with consent - whereas the UK Law is much more explicit about what constitutes consent and in what circumstances one may consider oneself to have it.
from everything Ive read on this topic I think hes made it plain he doesnt want to email his members he offered other things and got called names for it. Would you try and help after that?
Not really: DPA legislation is complicated and, in some circumstances, leads to results that one might consider to be ludicrous. For instance, if you were married, you can't ring up a company and ask them to stop mailing your husband because he has died - even though common sense might dictate that one should be able to.
I know that one from bitter experience, because I was occupying the Data Protection chair in a company that did just that, thinking this would be the most sympathetic way to treat an individual. Turned out to be a hoax call....and one of the individuals concerned promptly initiated a law suit against the company which our lawyers advised was likely to need £50k to make go away.
Luckily, it was settled out of court.
Yeah Im aware of the DPA its part of my job
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
«No Name Set», 10 Nov 2005 19:33:06
SOmeone thought of trying to contact people in marginal seats
and ask them for help with the campaign.
SOmeone else for better ideas of doing this than sending them
all emails.
Idea: suppose we have a list of key marginal seats - say
Felpersham, Penny Hassett and Much Binding West. Could someone
write a banner (ISTR Tanos saying he'd asked for one) with a
message like:
"Do you live in Felpersham? Penny Hassett? Much Binding West?
"Want to see these proposals defeated?
"Can you help? - here's how."
and add a link to an appropriate forum or whatever where the
requirements are explained and encouragements to join in.
I'm sure someone who actually knows what a "banner" is because
they can see one on their browser can word it better.
--
Rosemary
zak, 10 Nov 2005 19:58:29
Original Message:
-----------------
^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 10 Nov 2005 19:58:29
What I find more worrying is, what someone just added to a posting of
mine, that she would like to "say something" but there is nothing on the
Backlash site by way of a sample objection she could base hers on (as
others have said to me)
--
^Thunder^
Well, if it's any help, here's what I wrote to as a response. Your pal is
free to nick
bits of it if she wishes.
To Whom It May Concern
Regarding the Consultation Document on Extreme Pornography
The measures proposed are unworkable, unnecessary and entirely unethical.
It is a matter
of people with narrow minds and some measure of authority attempting to
impose their
personal tastes on the rest of the population.
That there is NO conclusive evidence that those who view pornographic
images invariably go
on to commit violent crime is something that is admitted even in the
consultation
document. Not only has 'evidence' sometimes claimed, by opponents of free
thought and free
expression to exist been shown up as badly flawed, impossible to replicate
or
demonstrating clear bias but there is an admittedly small amount of
evidence suggesting
that consumption of images, having a cathartic effect on the individual,
can actually
reduce crime.
An image is only an image. The interpretation placed on any image by any
viewer is
entirely up to the viewer. There are already laws in place to help those
who have been
abused without their consent; if consenting adults wish to photograph or
film themselves
or others covered in ketchup, pretending to be dead or tied to a table leg,
whether for
the purposes of artistic exploration, political propaganda or sexual
pleasure, that is
surely not an activity that merits three years in prison. Why should
looking at such
images be an equivalent crime? After all, just as an image taken from a
proclaimed piece
of 'pornography' could be used by campaigners to advocate, say, an end to
domestic
violence, then an image taken from newsreel footage of violent death could
serve a
masturbatory purpose to an individual so inclined.
Enthusiasts of this proposed censorship will claim that it is worth the
restriction on our
freedom as lives will be saved: given the tiny number of violent attacks
committed by
viewers of pornography, it would seem likely that far more lives would be
lost if looking
at pictures becomes a criminal offence to this extent: lives lost from
suicide, heart
attacks or other stress-related illnesses after having one's door kicked
in, one's
business ruined, one's work tools confiscated and one's identity publicised
(and
demonised) without trial. It is rumoured that only a small minority of
those 'caught'
during Operation Ore had ANY indecent images of children on their computers.
Finally, when it comes to lives lost at the hands of those who have been
exposed to
'abhorrent' thoughts, words and images, the score achieved by religion is
considerably
higher than any score achieved by pornography. People kill those of other
races or faiths,
'unbelievers' or different believers, by the thousand, because they claim
their imaginary
friends want them to do so. This is not to advocate the banning of
religion, of course: I
believe in people's freedom to think, say, draw, write and photograph what
they like - and
look at, read and hear what they like as well.
Scaring the public with bogey figures of evil pornographers in order to
make them accept
increased censorship is like scaring them with bogey figures of evil
terrorists in order
to make them accept ID cards: just another excuse to restrict civil
liberties even more.
It is not acceptable, and the proposals in this document are an attack on
intellectual
freedom more disgusting than any pornography.
End of response (
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
adrian, 10 Nov 2005 21:07:57
This sounds like an idea. I never knew Tanos was asking us for a
banner, but now we do know, and seem to have his approval for banners,
we could make a simple animation that put up four lots of four
consituencies at a time, giving 16. Thunder?
My only questions - and there may be answers to them - are:
If one person writes to a marginal MP on a non-local issue like this,
is that any reason for them thinking that supporting it will gain any
more than the one voter who wrote? If the population seemed to be
two-thirds for the bill, there's no reason to suppose the one letter
means his constituents as a whole are any different.
How important is it to get MPs on our side at this stage? Do they
feed back these views to the ministry? Yes, if they're prepared to
make a statement about it that's great, but most are at best going to
feel they need to find out some more before they vote, but take no
other action now. Lobbying the LibDem and Tory Home Affairs reps is
important but surely by far the most important thing for now is the
consultation response.
On 10/11/05, Rosemary wrote:
> SOmeone thought of trying to contact people in marginal seats
> and ask them for help with the campaign.
>
> SOmeone else for better ideas of doing this than sending them
> all emails.
>
>
> Idea: suppose we have a list of key marginal seats - say
> Felpersham, Penny Hassett and Much Binding West. Could someone
> write a banner (ISTR Tanos saying he'd asked for one) with a
> message like:
>
> "Do you live in Felpersham? Penny Hassett? Much Binding West?
>
> "Want to see these proposals defeated?
>
> "Can you help? - here's how."
>
> and add a link to an appropriate forum or whatever where the
> requirements are explained and encouragements to join in.
>
>
> I'm sure someone who actually knows what a "banner" is because
> they can see one on their browser can word it better.
>
>
>
> --
> Rosemary
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3555
>
Thunder, 10 Nov 2005 22:14:15
In message <56dbeda20511101305p1078322er@mail.gmail.com>, Adrian
writes
>This sounds like an idea. I never knew Tanos was asking us for a
>banner, but now we do know, and seem to have his approval for banners,
>we could make a simple animation that put up four lots of four
>consituencies at a time, giving 16. Thunder?
Sure I can do an animated banner BUT
Think this through.
>
Firstly is it in fact going to antagonise an MP to in effect be
threatened
Secondly IF in fact an MP can be swayed, he can be swayed in EITHER
direction.
Though if supporters of the proposal are going to do it I suppose that
we could too but I feel as a "general" lobby NOT as a threat.
My gut feeling is in "threatening" those with marginal seats it could be
self defeating .
--
^Thunder^
Amelie, 10 Nov 2005 22:39:56
well said. Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 10 Nov 2005 22:39:56
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:56 PM
Original Message:
-----------------
^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 10 Nov 2005 22:39:56
What I find more worrying is, what someone just added to a posting of
mine, that she would like to "say something" but there is nothing on the
Backlash site by way of a sample objection she could base hers on (as
others have said to me)
--
^Thunder^
Well, if it's any help, here's what I wrote to as a response. Your pal is
free to nick
bits of it if she wishes.
To Whom It May Concern
Regarding the Consultation Document on Extreme Pornography
The measures proposed are unworkable, unnecessary and entirely unethical.
It is a matter
of people with narrow minds and some measure of authority attempting to
impose their
personal tastes on the rest of the population.
That there is NO conclusive evidence that those who view pornographic
images invariably go
on to commit violent crime is something that is admitted even in the
consultation
document. Not only has 'evidence' sometimes claimed, by opponents of free
thought and free
expression to exist been shown up as badly flawed, impossible to replicate
or
demonstrating clear bias but there is an admittedly small amount of
evidence suggesting
that consumption of images, having a cathartic effect on the individual,
can actually
reduce crime.
An image is only an image. The interpretation placed on any image by any
viewer is
entirely up to the viewer. There are already laws in place to help those
who have been
abused without their consent; if consenting adults wish to photograph or
film themselves
or others covered in ketchup, pretending to be dead or tied to a table leg,
whether for
the purposes of artistic exploration, political propaganda or sexual
pleasure, that is
surely not an activity that merits three years in prison. Why should
looking at such
images be an equivalent crime? After all, just as an image taken from a
proclaimed piece
of 'pornography' could be used by campaigners to advocate, say, an end to
domestic
violence, then an image taken from newsreel footage of violent death could
serve a
masturbatory purpose to an individual so inclined.
Enthusiasts of this proposed censorship will claim that it is worth the
restriction on our
freedom as lives will be saved: given the tiny number of violent attacks
committed by
viewers of pornography, it would seem likely that far more lives would be
lost if looking
at pictures becomes a criminal offence to this extent: lives lost from
suicide, heart
attacks or other stress-related illnesses after having one's door kicked
in, one's
business ruined, one's work tools confiscated and one's identity publicised
(and
demonised) without trial. It is rumoured that only a small minority of
those 'caught'
during Operation Ore had ANY indecent images of children on their computers.
Finally, when it comes to lives lost at the hands of those who have been
exposed to
'abhorrent' thoughts, words and images, the score achieved by religion is
considerably
higher than any score achieved by pornography. People kill thos