On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:50:06 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at
>09:15:11 on Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Sara Kirk 
>remarked:
>>> >>  Automated calls have been illegal for a long time.
>>> >
>>> >Apparently, not for Nick Clegg.
>>>
>>> Que?
>>
>>I read about this yesterday and was rather appalled:
>>
>><http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-to-bombard-voters-with-americanstyle-automated-calls-933042.html>
>
>Seems to be direct contravention of
>
>19.  - (1) A person shall neither transmit, nor instigate the
>transmission of, communications comprising recorded matter for direct
>marketing purposes by means of an automated calling system except in the
>circumstances referred to in paragraph (2).
>
>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm
>
>And the ICO has said that "promotion of a political party" is definitely
>marketing.
>
><http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practica
>l_application/promotion_of_a_political_party.pdf>
>
>and:
>
>"The PECR strictly prohibit the making of such calls for marketing
>purposes to anyone (including corporate subscribers) without that
>subscriber’s prior consent. In our view, obtaining consent to make
>“voice calls” is not sufficient. It is worth noting that many
>individuals tell us that they consider such calls to be extremely
>intrusive and even disturbing."
>
>So are they relying on an argument that says these calls are "market
>research" !?!?
>
>The documant above goes on to say:
>
>"We are aware that political parties do not just communicate with
>individuals for promotional purposes. A political party can conduct
>genuine research just as professional market research companies do.
>Parties should, however, be careful to ensure that such communications
>are not in reality soliciting support under the guise of research."
>
>and finally:
>
>"The Commissioner looks to political parties to respect the best
>practice of the marketing industry when conducting any promotional
>activity. It would be regrettable if parties were seen to be testing the
>limits of the legislation."

I wish they were right, but it is pretty clear that they are not.
Soliciting support for a political party is not "marketing", because
they are not aiming to sell anything. If the parties were to "test the
limits of the legislation" by bringing this "guidance" before a court
it would probably be shot down in flames, which would indeed be
"regrettable", but not surprising.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

In message , at 18:30:17 on 
Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Aitken  remarked:
>Soliciting support for a political party is not "marketing", because
>they are not aiming to sell anything.

I agree with the ICO. They are "marketing" an idea - that they should be 
voted for. The spirit of the legislation is to preserve people's privacy 
from invasion by large organisations. Trying to scrape through on a 
technicality is scandalous.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:10:22 on Thu, 18 Sep 
2008, Roland Perry  remarked:
>>Soliciting support for a political party is not "marketing", because
>>they are not aiming to sell anything.
>
>I agree with the ICO. They are "marketing" an idea - that they should 
>be voted for. The spirit of the legislation is to preserve people's 
>privacy from invasion by large organisations. Trying to scrape through 
>on a technicality is scandalous.

And the ICO has reiterated this today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7635799.stm
-- 
Roland Perry