Forum
Comments:
-
- on Sun 14 Mar 2010
- 11:50:52 AM UTC
Welcome to wot
Actually the owner is
denic
Jonas Peter Lambrecht
Dolivostr. 4
64293
Darmstadt
DEnot sure if it´s correct. Have you informed the lawyer????
Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 12:03:04 AM UTC
Remove the personal data please
Blueberry Mountain, please edit your comment. The DENIC terms of service state "Sie [die Domaindaten ] dürfen [...] ohne ausdrückliche schriftliche Erlaubnis der DENIC eG weder elektronisch noch in anderer Art gespeichert werden." (domain data mustn't be stored in any way without written permission of the DENIC eG) - this is what you agreed to.
Beyond that, publishing personal information without permission of the owner violates law. We should be exemplary here.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 12:25:42 AM UTC
The DENIC terms of service
The DENIC terms of service only apply to those who have signed up for DENIC services. If the information published by Blueberry Mountain is freely available on the Internet to non-DENIC users then the DENIC terms of service are just so many useless words.
"We should be exemplary here." - We should be transparent here, regardless of any so-called Terms of Service. As far as publishing personal information goes, it is up to the individual to decide just how much personal information, if any, should be put onto the Internet in the first place. Once that information is on the Internet then it is simply too late and bleating about the transmission of that information is futile.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 01:30:48 AM UTC
> We should be transparent
> We should be transparent here
Be consinstent, tell us your real name ;) just kidding.
Personal data is protected by EU law. Just because others violate personal rights, this doesn't become legal. Even if it was legal, it's just my opinion real names of third person shouldn't be posted to forums.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 01:48:33 AM UTC
tell us your real name
You can find everything that I don't mind people knowing about me just by typing Jazspeak into Google and following the links. If there is anything that I don't want people to know then I don't put that information onto the Internet.
"Personal data is protected by EU law." - Only if the information is actually protected by the Data Protection legislation. Personal names are not protected by EU law but details such as bank accounts are protected.
"...real names of third person shouldn't be posted to forums." - If the names are associated with scams then I would suggest that those real names should be published. If anyone is unfairly named as associated with scams then the libel laws have a role to play in recovering the reputation of the inappropriately named person. If the real names of scammers, and their associates were to be routinely published as widely as possible then everyone would be able to know who the scammers are, and the scammers might think twice before trying to scam the rest of us.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 02:18:46 AM UTC
What do you think about
What do you think about http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&... ?
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 06:58:12 AM UTC
"What do you think about..."
I think that the amber warning says as much as is needed for me to decide not to completely trust the site. The poor trustworthiness rating shows that a significant number of WOT users do not trust the site, although it is a pity that those rating the site did not leave any comments to explain their poor experience of the site.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 09:06:55 AM UTC
Then use this one, it's
Then use these, they're green: ;)
http://www.out-law.com/page-4051
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/19/133351.htmlAn alternative of publishing personal data here would be to give the Internet provider of him an E-Mail and point them to the recriminations. The website would then be removed (which is the best protection for all, even non-WOT-users) and you would adhere to the laws. Killed two birds with one stone.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 12:29:31 PM UTC
they're green
Whilst the links you gave are green, the out-law.com site scorecard has only two comments of user experience - both comments are red and give an indication that the site is a source of spam and poor customer experience - and the out-law.com whois record is very suspicious because the address is a Post Office Box Number (care of Network Solutions) and the e-mail address is not in a format commonly used by companies and individuals (although the e-mail address might be an attempt at spam-proofing).
The findlaw.com site has a much better rating and the whois record seems to be accurate and contains proper contact data confirmed by an address finder.
The link http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/19/133351.html provides a very interesting perspective on the question of publishing personal data across geopolitical boundaries, although it is within the confines of criminal proceedings. Even more interesting is that I have very recently (this month) had to deal with a UK company making some of my non-public details available to another company within the UK but without my permission. The e-mail that I received on this matter shows that: "You raised concerns that [the company] may have breached the rules of the Data Protection Act 1998 by asking you to disclose sensitive and non-sensitive personal data. I would like to reassure you that this is not the case and that we take data protection requirements very seriously at the [company]. Our role...allows us to collect, store and process sensitive and non-sensitive personal information for those people to whom we supply services, providing we meet the conditions of Schedule 2 (for personal data) and Schedule 3 (for sensitive personal data) of the Data Protection Act 1998...However, data protection regulations do allow us to pass this information on, and collect this information from [individuals]...Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows that personal data may be disclosed in order to:
o Protect the vital interests of the [individual] (this applies is only in a life or death situation).
o Administer justice
o Perform legal functions
o Assist the Government to perform it’s functions"NB - I have edited the e-mail to preserve some of the information that I do not wish to share with everyone else.
So you can see that the area of data protection can be fraught with difficulties of interpretation. The main grey area is in what people consider to be sensitive data beyond the commonly accepted sensitive data such as bank and credit card details. A good rule-of-thumb is that if the information is already available in public records, such as Electoral Registers, Whois records, et al, then that information is not considered to be sensitive and transmission of that information to third parties is allowed under the European Data Legislation (provided that there is no criminal intent), whereas information not held in public records must not be transmitted to third parties unless the discloser is willing to be tested by the Courts.
-
- on Tue 16 Mar 2010
- 10:33:20 AM UTC
Thanks for your detailed
Thanks for your detailed posting. It's a little bit hard for me to understand legal texts though, because my english capabilities are focussed on technical documentation. In this reply I write down my opinion based on the current legal situation in Germany, that very closely adheres to EU laws. As owner of some medium-sized websites it is very important for me to handle data responsible and avoid warning letters liable to a fee (German: "kostenpflichtige Abmahnungen").
> A good rule-of-thumb is that if the information is already available in public records, such as Electoral Registers, Whois records, et al, then that information is not considered to be sensitive and transmission of that information to third parties is allowed under the European Data Legislation
I don't complain about the transmission of that data from one person to another. There is a difference between passing the information between two persons or companies directly involved and publishing such data to the Internet and storing it on webservers. The European Court of Justice (see references posted above) has decided, storing such information on webservers (websites, forums, whatever) is electronic processing of personal data.
Personal data is a particular protected property. The best rule of thumb is, it is never okay, without the explicit permission of the owner, to publish or process postal addresses, phone numbers or e-mail-addresses.
For example, the electronic registers are maintained by companies being allowed to store the information in any form, like electronically, and provide information about the registered persons and companies to the public. The storing of the data is bound to the purpose of transparent registration and when requesting the information from DENIC the requester agrees to that. Being listed in those registers doesn't necessarly allow other companies (like WOT Services Ltd.) to store and handle the same information.
-
- on Tue 16 Mar 2010
- 08:06:43 PM UTC
Personal data is a particular protected property
In many respects I don't disagree with your opinion. However, the European Court of Justice ruling is in the context of a particular Criminal prosecution, and without knowing the full circumstances of that prosecution it is impossible for either of us to hold a definitive opinion of that ECJ ruling. Although I am not a Lawyer, I have had previous dealings with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (and the UK Court of Appeal), although it was in UK Family Law, which resulted in substantial changes to UK Family Law, so I have first-hand experience (having represented myself without a Lawyer) that the case details are of paramount importance when considering any ECJ rulings - just reading the ruling is insufficient to form a properly informed opinion.
I also take data protection very seriously but I have to be somewhat circumspect about the amount and type of personal information that is already in the public domain. For instance, there are companies that buy and sell information that is available in the public domain, and those companies make that information available to anyone who can pay, and for any purpose, whether I like it or not. The only real protections are: (a) I can restrict the amount of personal data that I make available to the public domain; and (b) that any individual or company using any data for criminal purposes or with criminal intent can be prosecuted in the Criminal Courts.
With regard to the example I gave of my own recent experience of data protection, I objected to the transmission of my personal data and the situation was satisfactorily resolved with my details being deleted from the sub-contractor's system. I did not need to go to Court and the situation was resolved quickly and reasonably amicably.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 04:19:58 AM UTC
re: kanzlei-rerrer.de
Phishing site blocked by OpenDNS.
http://phish.opendns.com/?url=kanzlei-rerrer.de
Rated and commented-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 09:28:26 AM UTC
Phishing site blocked by
http://phish.opendns.com/?url=mywot.com
Be more careful guys! Anyway, I better leave now and let you save the world on your own.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 09:49:59 AM UTC
http://phish.opendns.com/?url
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 10:30:49 AM UTC
In deed. I posted a comment
In deed. I posted a comment to the scorecard to point at that issue. http://phish.opendns.com is rated trustworthy as yet, but by far isn't if they let third party inject arbitrary texts into their warning page.
The evidence for violations committed by the website critisized in the original posting of this thread should be substantiated a little bit more.
-
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 10:34:10 AM UTC
Right thing.
They should solve this issue, as fast as possible. Could be used to indicate a wrong sight of view for 3rds
__________________________________________________________________
Gold-Member of WOT-Community -
- on Mon 15 Mar 2010
- 11:03:16 AM UTC
Re:
I´ve shown up that the "impressum" is incorrect and the owner is somebdy different. Although you don´t know ifthis name is correct.
BTW
The lawyer is informend and pressed charges.Not sure if this will work, but...Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community
scam
http://kanzlei-rerrer.de is a very dangerous site it's copied from a real solicitor who my partner has had contact with, my partner lost 14,000 Euro through them when they send out their emails that heading comes up and when you go into their site you get alot more than what you see. I have all documentation and emails from these people, the police in Flensburg have been informed. These people were selling a Mondeo car (it never existed) the guy said he works for Audi but he's in Hungary but he sends by email all the paperwork and a bank in Hungary OTP, the kanzlei then gets you to ring him for more added details, their address what they give out in Hungary is actually a county goverment office dealing with sports. After they got the money my partner sent they all disappeared BUT a few days later I made contact with them under another name and I got exactly the same emails/phone numbers as my partner did and the same scam website from the above mentioned. The Mondeo car was taken out of a site Mobile.de.
My partner was stupid for sending all that money abroad but if I could save one or two persons from doing the same then I will have achieved something here. Anything that you see on the web to do with Kanzlei-rerrer.de do not respond because you are at risk if you do. Wolfgang Rerrer is a REAL solicitor but that is NOT his website. I hope I have helped you all here today.