Yup. I get it, even though I unsubscribed. If fact, i thought i HAD
unsubscribed once, only to suddenly get about 30 Tube Alerts emails from
them in all one day. I'm totally f'd off with them as they seem incapable
of removing my email address from their subscription list.

I added it to Blocked sender - but it comes from various tfl.gov.uk and
thetube.com addresses.
--
To reply direct, Remove NOSPAM and Replace with 21fun
For the latest News, Information and Photos check out
http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

If it is really officially from TfL, then either:
- you agreed at some past time to receive it, in which case it is good
practice for them to include an unsubscribe feature, or
- you haven't so agreed, in which case they're breaking the law.

What law is that? I didn't realise that the UK's anti-spam laws were that
strict.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:32:19 GMT Richard J. wrote:
} Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
}
} If it is really officially from TfL, then either:
} - you agreed at some past time to receive it, in which case it is good
} practice for them to include an unsubscribe feature, or
} - you haven't so agreed, in which case they're breaking the law.
}
} What law is that? I didn't realise that the UK's anti-spam laws were that
} strict.

Obliquely. To send you mail they must keep you e-mail address and in so
doing fall under the data protection act.

Since a tightening up that came into force January such data may only
be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

Top satisfy this you must have been presented with some text (paper or
web) explaining that they'd spam you if you did (opt in) or didn't (opt
out) this or that check box.

Further they may now only do so for a year before again ascertaining
your willingness to be spammed. Without your extended permission they
have to expunge "the data" ie your e-mail address.

Now I'm looking forward to a time when opt-outs are made illegal and all
such schemes require a positive opt-in action on the part of the
putative recipient. This is the way we do it at work and I had cause to
notice that the Telegraph site is the same.

Personally I wish that I'd kept more stringent records of various
transactions online. I am usually scrupulous about opting-out or not
opting-in as the case may be and am firmly convinced that I have never
given permission for the Really Useful Company to spam me. They persist
in doing so and I lack the means of demonstrating that I didn't say they
could.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

Geoff Marshall wrote:
Yup. I get it, even though I unsubscribed. If fact, i thought i HAD
unsubscribed once, only to suddenly get about 30 Tube Alerts emails from
them in all one day. I'm totally f'd off with them as they seem incapable
of removing my email address from their subscription list.

When I was system admin for a small company it was really hard
persuading the marketing people that they couldn't just spam every email
address they had a record of, but must keep a separate list of people
who had opted into, or at least not opted out of, receiving such
messages.

Bigger organisations should be better at this, if their IT staff are
competent and their marketing staff have no direct way to send spam.

Colin McKenzie

In article , Matthew
Malthouse writes
Since a tightening up that came into force January such data may only
be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

Huh? What happened in January. The most recent DPA came into force in
1998.

Further they may now only do so for a year before again ascertaining
your willingness to be spammed. Without your extended permission they
have to expunge "the data" ie your e-mail address.

I'm not aware of any "1 year timeout" on permission. Source, please.
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and then stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:40:31 -0400 Roland Perry wrote:
} In article , Matthew
} Malthouse writes
} Since a tightening up that came into force January such data may only
} be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.
}
} Huh? What happened in January. The most recent DPA came into force in
} 1998.

Lots happened. Various provisions of ammending legislation came into
force. There has been lots of it:

The Data Protection Act 1998 (Commencement) Order 2000 Statutory
Instrument 2000 No. 183 (C.4)
The Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) Order 2000 Statutory
Instrument 2000 No. 184
The Data Protection (Conditions under Paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule
1) Order 2000 Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 185
The Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 186
The Data Protection (Fees under section 19(7)) Regulations 2000
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 187
The Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations
2000 Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 188
The Data Protection Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2000 Statutory
Instrument 2000 No. 189
The Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 Statutory
Instrument 2000 No. 190
The Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Regulations 2000 Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 191
The Data Protection Tribunal (National Security Appeals) Rules 2000
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 206
The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 413
The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 414
The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order
2000 Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 415
The Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000 Statutory Instrument
2000 No. 416

Other legislation has also effected ammendment of the original acts as
diverse as Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 the provsisions of which come in to force in
various bits up to 2005.

} Further they may now only do so for a year before again ascertaining
} your willingness to be spammed. Without your extended permission they
} have to expunge "the data" ie your e-mail address.
}
} I'm not aware of any "1 year timeout" on permission. Source, please.

It is what the sharks said was required when we built a new user
registration system earlier this year. I don't know off hand which
particular part of the original or ammending legislation covers it.

The Act as it received Royal Assent is at
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/a...8/19980029.htm

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

In article , Matthew
Malthouse writes

Since a tightening up that came into force January such data may only
be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

Huh? What happened in January. The most recent DPA came into force in
1998.

Lots happened. Various provisions of ammending legislation came into
force. There has been lots of it:

[snip]

None of these is relevant to the basic DPA principle that "data may only
be used for the purpose for which it was gathered".

} Further they may now only do so for a year before again ascertaining
} your willingness to be spammed. Without your extended permission they
} have to expunge "the data" ie your e-mail address.
}
} I'm not aware of any "1 year timeout" on permission. Source, please.

It is what the sharks said was required when we built a new user
registration system earlier this year. I don't know off hand which
particular part of the original or ammending legislation covers it.

I think you'll find that none of it does.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"