Feeds

back to article 'Unsolicited texts' outrage: Man fined £4k for DPA breach

The owner of a marketing company which allegedly sent "millions of unsolicited text messages" was prosecuted for "failing to notify the ICO of changes to his notification" at Willesden Magistrates Court last week. Jayesh Shah, of Pune, India, was fined £4,000 for a breach of the Data Protection Act, and ordered to pay costs of £ …

Silver badge

What a waste of space ...

has anyone told the ICO that their purpose is to protect us from people using data inappropriately ? Keeping registered is the least important part of that.

This tallys with my experience of them (when making a complaint) they are not very interested. When asking for advice on the cookie law a couple of years ago they were very reluctant to make clear statements.

I can see that from the ICO's point of view they need to keep the cash coming in - but that is not the purpose that Parliament created them for!

10
1
Silver badge
Pirate

@ alain williams -- Re: What a waste of space ...

I can see that from the ICO's point of view they need to keep the cash coming in - but that is not the purpose that Parliament created them for!

You sure about that?

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Not charged for SPAM txts?

That's because that's nothing to do with the ICO that's why. Bit like the RSPCA taking you to court for a speeding fine (don't give them any ideas).

4
2
FAIL

Re: Not charged for SPAM txts?

http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/marketing/texts

http://ico.org.uk/enforcement/action/texts

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Not charged for SPAM txts?

I stand corrected..always dealt with the premium rate ones.

That said, the guy was licensed from the UK for data protection, but if the texts come from abroad....it gets a bit messy.

Still need that humble pie icon.

1
0
Silver badge
Coat

@ Lost all faith... -- Re: Not charged for SPAM txts?

Still need that humble pie icon.

Would that be pre- or post-Frampton?

0
0
Bronze badge
Go

Possible motive?

Perhaps the judge (1) wanted to fine the company because he detested the business, but this was the only way to do it.

(1) This may apply to other people who helped in the prosecution.

1
0
Bronze badge
Flame

Actually

It's the people who respond to Spam who should be prosecuted.

If they weren't so f*****g stupid the goons that (pay to) send it wouldn't make any money.

6
5
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Actually

quote: "If they weren't so f*****g stupid the goons that (pay to) send it wouldn't make any money."

Ah, blaming the victim, the past-time of champions.

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: Actually

No. In the case of spam the victims* aren't the ones who respond. It's all the innocent parties with clogged inboxes.

The people who reply are just feeding the pigeons.

*Exception made for actual scams, which suck victims in. But they are only a subset of Spam.

1
0

How to stop PPI calls & SMS

Banks & Govt agree that no claim for PPI made by a third party on behalf of an individual will be dealt with but that the Bank must contact the individual directly (with their information being provided by intermediary to the Bank for free) to determine if compensation is payable.

Thus the individual claim will still be dealt with but the pariah firms who rip people off wouldn't get a penny

7
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon