=10·Theme
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins)
Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins)Follow
Sometimes I 
=10
=10Fynlar wrote:
Chew is being a lot more level-headed regarding the whole issue, which is strange because he's probably drunk.
Apologies for the slow pace here.
As well as the ICO, I am now considering taking legal advice on this from elsewhere. I work in government, and one of our solicitors does have a bit of a crush on me, so I may see if they're able to have a look over things if they're quiet.
As well as the ICO, I am now considering taking legal advice on this from elsewhere. I work in government, and one of our solicitors does have a bit of a crush on me, so I may see if they're able to have a look over things if they're quiet.
/request update
Nothing to report right now. ICO are chasing, I'm chasing but nobody at SE will speak to me.
Will try again tomorrow. My guess is that SE are challenging this with the ICO, and therefore neither party is in a position to advise.
Will try again tomorrow. My guess is that SE are challenging this with the ICO, and therefore neither party is in a position to advise.
Going to make one final call to SE tomorrow. I just tried again now, and still I cannot speak with anyone in the legal section.
Should I encounter the same, I have taken advice from the ICO and solicitors here, and I will send to Square Enix a "Notice Before Action" letter, detailing that, unless I receive their response within 10 days of the letter being serviced, I will make a claim against them in The Small Claims Court for compensation due to their failure to comply. I would be looking for the cost of my phonecalls to be reimbursed, reimbursement for the man-hours I've had to spend chasing them for this information, and possibly a small additional payment to properly compensate for their errors.
Should I encounter the same, I have taken advice from the ICO and solicitors here, and I will send to Square Enix a "Notice Before Action" letter, detailing that, unless I receive their response within 10 days of the letter being serviced, I will make a claim against them in The Small Claims Court for compensation due to their failure to comply. I would be looking for the cost of my phonecalls to be reimbursed, reimbursement for the man-hours I've had to spend chasing them for this information, and possibly a small additional payment to properly compensate for their errors.
I don't know if you're just following standard procedure for the UK, but I've always heard that you don't threaten to sue, you just sue.
As far as I thought, the warning of incoming lawsuit is common for dealing with big companies. It's in one last attempt to get what you want out of them before doing it the hard way.
Lots of times a company will give you what you want, or settle, when they realize you're about to cost them a lot more with legal/image trouble.
Since it's being done in a formal way through a real lawyer type person, they know it's no bluff, the lawsuit is ready if they don't act.
I could be wrong, feel free to educate me.
Edited, Nov 5th 2010 12:36am by RattyBatty
Lots of times a company will give you what you want, or settle, when they realize you're about to cost them a lot more with legal/image trouble.
Since it's being done in a formal way through a real lawyer type person, they know it's no bluff, the lawsuit is ready if they don't act.
I could be wrong, feel free to educate me.
Edited, Nov 5th 2010 12:36am by RattyBatty
Man, this is better than any episode of Penn & Teller ********* I've seen (OK, maybe not the Bible one, that one was hilarious). It's like looking at a train wreck, and knowing you shouldn't.
Just for information, for the civil courts you are expected to have taken all reasonable steps to settle any dispute without the legal process first. I've now got enough documentation to be able to do this, and the notice before action would also look favourable.
It's a rather standard thing in the UK, although you do get people just taking somoene straight to court. It doesn't help the claimant though, as it makes it look like they're jumping ahead and determined just to have a day in court.
Will be telephoning SE around 3pm today.
It's a rather standard thing in the UK, although you do get people just taking somoene straight to court. It doesn't help the claimant though, as it makes it look like they're jumping ahead and determined just to have a day in court.
Will be telephoning SE around 3pm today.
I telephoned SE this afternoon, on their main switchboard (02086 363000) and asked for the legal department.
I have just been to the Post Office and send a letter by recorded mail to their new address, titled "Notice Before Action" stating the nature of my claim against them, costs involved, and a request of interest at the rate of 8% in line with current guidance. My reason for doing so is that, despite the assurance that I would be passed through straight away when calling today, I was again told it is not company policy to put me through without a named person.
The Notice Before Action should be delivered on Monday, and I will therefore give them until the 23rd November to respond. Should they not respond in this time, I will be filing a court claim against them.
To reiterate my first post, I'm not in this for any money. I just want what I'm entitled to have. Should it get as far as court, and I win, then my primary concern would be the reimbursement of my costs. Anything extra I would probably donate to a charity.
I have just been to the Post Office and send a letter by recorded mail to their new address, titled "Notice Before Action" stating the nature of my claim against them, costs involved, and a request of interest at the rate of 8% in line with current guidance. My reason for doing so is that, despite the assurance that I would be passed through straight away when calling today, I was again told it is not company policy to put me through without a named person.
The Notice Before Action should be delivered on Monday, and I will therefore give them until the 23rd November to respond. Should they not respond in this time, I will be filing a court claim against them.
To reiterate my first post, I'm not in this for any money. I just want what I'm entitled to have. Should it get as far as court, and I win, then my primary concern would be the reimbursement of my costs. Anything extra I would probably donate to a charity.
TaiStyle wrote:
To reiterate my first post, I'm not in this for any money. I just want what I'm entitled to have. Should it get as far as court, and I win, then my primary concern would be the reimbursement of my costs. Anything extra I would probably donate to a charity.
If you succeed at this, and actually force SE to consider the consequences of ignoring the law, then I say that anything extra you might get would be a well-deserved reward.
As I said at the start, I'm not really in it for myself.
While researching tonight, I stumbled across this, which in a way is similar. http://kotaku.com/5139839/square-enix-junk-mail-pisses-off-man-man-files-lawsuit-man-wins
It's a similar thing to the DPA in the UK, and you can opt-out of such emails and the company must abide by this. SE took it all the way here though.
While researching tonight, I stumbled across this, which in a way is similar. http://kotaku.com/5139839/square-enix-junk-mail-pisses-off-man-man-files-lawsuit-man-wins
It's a similar thing to the DPA in the UK, and you can opt-out of such emails and the company must abide by this. SE took it all the way here though.
TaiStyle wrote:
Afternoon all,
Some of the older people may remember back last year, I was having all sorts of issues with Square Enix, being jailed for no reason at all, billing issues, everything. I made a complaint to The Information Commissioners Office as I'd asked Square Enix for logs relating to my account, which they refused to provide as "it's not Square Enix policy". This is detailed in This thread
One year down the line (unfortunately these things take time), and the ICO have confirmed that Square Enix are in breach of The Data Protection Act 1998 Principles 6 & 7. The full response from the ICO is below.
So what does this mean?
Not a lot for those outside the UK I'm afraid. I'm only aware of UK law, but this investigation by the ICO means that it should now be easier for anyone in the UK to get information on their account and the information the SE hold, related to bannings, and the kind of action taken.
Potentially, this could lead to a damages claim from myself against SE. But I'm not interested in that or money, I just want them to be more open with the player base. It's also a good chance for them to get their FFXIV service spot on.
I'll update with any further developments.
Some of the older people may remember back last year, I was having all sorts of issues with Square Enix, being jailed for no reason at all, billing issues, everything. I made a complaint to The Information Commissioners Office as I'd asked Square Enix for logs relating to my account, which they refused to provide as "it's not Square Enix policy". This is detailed in This thread
One year down the line (unfortunately these things take time), and the ICO have confirmed that Square Enix are in breach of The Data Protection Act 1998 Principles 6 & 7. The full response from the ICO is below.
Quote:
I write further to my letters of 26th July and 13th September 2010 concerning your complaint about the processing of your personal information by Square Enix Ltd. As I have alread explained, our duty in relation to your complaint is to make an assessment. An assessment is a view or opinion about whether it is likely or unlikely that Square Enix Ltd complied with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) in the situation that you described to us.
You were concerned that Square Enix Ltd had refused to respond to your subject access request dated 11th August 2009.
The sixth principle says:
"Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the right of data subjects under this Act"
From the information you provided I was not able to make my assessment. I asked Square Enix Ltd for their views and they have now provided the information I requested.
As you were aware from my letter of 13 September, I had received a response from Square Enix Ltd, explaining that you would be provided with your personal data subject to certain redactions, primarily regarding third party information. I had therefore requested further information regarding these redactions in order to be sure that these are justified.
With regards to your original request, Square Enix Ltd maintain that it was not received into their offices. Although I note that you had provided proof of delivery, Square Enix Ltd explained that they had moved offices around the time your request was sent. Your request was sent to their old offices, where they no longer had any staff based. They cannot therefore account for who signed for this letter. Additionally, Square Enix Ltd maintain that the email of the 23rd September 2009 in which a letter was acknowledged was sent in error.
It might be helpful to explain that we make our assessments on the balance of probabilities, and on this balance of probabilities, we accept that proof of delivery is sufficient evidence that a letter has been received. Additional to this, in order to comply with the seventh principle of the DPA an organisation must ensure that appropriate security measures are taken to protect personal data. This appears particularly significant where an organisation moves offices and cannot account for mail received and signed for at the old office.
In terms of the information which Square Enix Ltd propose to provide you in response to your subject access request, we are of the view that much of the redacted information can in fact be provided to you.
This is because although third party information may be available, it is nothing that you would not already be aware of.
From all of the information that is now available to me, it appears that Square Enix Ltd have failed to comply with the sixth principle in this case. This is because on the balance of probabilities it appears that your subject access request was received into their offices, and we believe that the redactions they have proposed are excessive.
In light of this it is my assessment that it is unlikely that Square Enix Ltd have complied with the DPA in this case.
You were concerned that Square Enix Ltd had refused to respond to your subject access request dated 11th August 2009.
The sixth principle says:
"Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the right of data subjects under this Act"
From the information you provided I was not able to make my assessment. I asked Square Enix Ltd for their views and they have now provided the information I requested.
As you were aware from my letter of 13 September, I had received a response from Square Enix Ltd, explaining that you would be provided with your personal data subject to certain redactions, primarily regarding third party information. I had therefore requested further information regarding these redactions in order to be sure that these are justified.
With regards to your original request, Square Enix Ltd maintain that it was not received into their offices. Although I note that you had provided proof of delivery, Square Enix Ltd explained that they had moved offices around the time your request was sent. Your request was sent to their old offices, where they no longer had any staff based. They cannot therefore account for who signed for this letter. Additionally, Square Enix Ltd maintain that the email of the 23rd September 2009 in which a letter was acknowledged was sent in error.
It might be helpful to explain that we make our assessments on the balance of probabilities, and on this balance of probabilities, we accept that proof of delivery is sufficient evidence that a letter has been received. Additional to this, in order to comply with the seventh principle of the DPA an organisation must ensure that appropriate security measures are taken to protect personal data. This appears particularly significant where an organisation moves offices and cannot account for mail received and signed for at the old office.
In terms of the information which Square Enix Ltd propose to provide you in response to your subject access request, we are of the view that much of the redacted information can in fact be provided to you.
This is because although third party information may be available, it is nothing that you would not already be aware of.
From all of the information that is now available to me, it appears that Square Enix Ltd have failed to comply with the sixth principle in this case. This is because on the balance of probabilities it appears that your subject access request was received into their offices, and we believe that the redactions they have proposed are excessive.
In light of this it is my assessment that it is unlikely that Square Enix Ltd have complied with the DPA in this case.
So what does this mean?
Not a lot for those outside the UK I'm afraid. I'm only aware of UK law, but this investigation by the ICO means that it should now be easier for anyone in the UK to get information on their account and the information the SE hold, related to bannings, and the kind of action taken.
Potentially, this could lead to a damages claim from myself against SE. But I'm not interested in that or money, I just want them to be more open with the player base. It's also a good chance for them to get their FFXIV service spot on.
I'll update with any further developments.
hmmm. i'm not too sure but if its true they broke the data protection act, if there are any refrences to these policies in the terms of service it could make them null and void.
but the data protection act states that any personal information must be disclosed to you if that information is about you, I know that it works for things like past bank statements etc, however when you mentioned logs i'm not too sure if you can get those unless they have personnal information.
Somone who knows alot about UK law should check the terms of service after this, if just one of SE's terms violates any laws it could make the whole terms of service void therefore technicly they shouldnt beable to ban anyone from the UK. This could end up interesting
Update:
Had an email this morning from the ICO. Square Enix have challenged their decision, and the ICO will respond to them by the end of the week. This was only received by the ICO within the last week, and was Square Enix again challenging the disclosure of the logs, due to it containing an ID of their staff.
I think it'll be thrown out by the ICO, and SE are just trying to buy time. Maybe when they receive the notice before action today, they'll stop messing around.
Had an email this morning from the ICO. Square Enix have challenged their decision, and the ICO will respond to them by the end of the week. This was only received by the ICO within the last week, and was Square Enix again challenging the disclosure of the logs, due to it containing an ID of their staff.
I think it'll be thrown out by the ICO, and SE are just trying to buy time. Maybe when they receive the notice before action today, they'll stop messing around.
Quote:
hmmm. i'm not too sure but if its true they broke the data protection act, if there are any refrences to these policies in the terms of service it could make them null and void.
It was stated in this thread already that a TOS cannot override law. The law trumps anything they put in the TOS, and this is why there is a case against SE.
Just got home from work, and a card through my door. Something requiring my signature arrived today, and I'm not expecting any other parcels. Could it be the response I was after?
I won't know until tomorrow, when I can get along to the Post Office and collect it. Will update again tomorrow evening. If it is, it's a shame that it's come to this.
I won't know until tomorrow, when I can get along to the Post Office and collect it. Will update again tomorrow evening. If it is, it's a shame that it's come to this.
SE mailed you a dead skunk I bet.
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.
I thought of it first:
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
watch out for ninjas when you open it.
I'll bear that in mind!
As I say, I'm not expecting anything else, so I have to assume for now that it's from them. It's been sent recorded next day delivery though, so I have to assume they've received the letter on Monday from myself, and realised it needed dealing with.
As I say, I'm not expecting anything else, so I have to assume for now that it's from them. It's been sent recorded next day delivery though, so I have to assume they've received the letter on Monday from myself, and realised it needed dealing with.
Inb4 30 page document with the info you requested black-markered out.
"What... we SENT it...."
Edited, Nov 10th 2010 11:15am by RattyBatty
"What... we SENT it...."
Edited, Nov 10th 2010 11:15am by RattyBatty
Ok guys, drum roll please...
Square Enix paid £4.86 to send this letter to me. It was one page of A4 paper, sent in a large envelope by special next day delivery. If they'd have just sent it recorded, it would've been about £1. The letter reads as follows:
So still no logs! They did CC this letter to the ICO though, so I wonder what they'll make of it.
Square Enix paid £4.86 to send this letter to me. It was one page of A4 paper, sent in a large envelope by special next day delivery. If they'd have just sent it recorded, it would've been about £1. The letter reads as follows:
Quote:
I refer to your subject access request under section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), which we received from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) under cover of a letter dated 11 August 2010.
Please note our address for correspondence is:
Wimbledon Bridge House
1 Hartfield Road
London
SW19 3RU
We have been working with the ICO since then and are in the process of preparing a response to your request, in compliance with our obligations under the DPA 1998.
We look forward to providing you with a fuller response to your letter at the earliest opportunity and thank you for your patience while we investigate this matter.
Please note our address for correspondence is:
Wimbledon Bridge House
1 Hartfield Road
London
SW19 3RU
We have been working with the ICO since then and are in the process of preparing a response to your request, in compliance with our obligations under the DPA 1998.
We look forward to providing you with a fuller response to your letter at the earliest opportunity and thank you for your patience while we investigate this matter.
So still no logs! They did CC this letter to the ICO though, so I wonder what they'll make of it.
SE must have been storing some pretty sensitive secrets in your logs to be going to these lengths not to provide them.
That must be the case. They're just taking the **** now though, big time.
Still, clock is ticking, and I'll stay true to my word now I'm received confirmation from the ICO that they consider it a closed case.
Still, clock is ticking, and I'll stay true to my word now I'm received confirmation from the ICO that they consider it a closed case.
TaiStyle wrote:
That must be the case. They're just taking the **** now though, big time.
Still, clock is ticking, and I'll stay true to my word now I'm received confirmation from the ICO that they consider it a closed case.
Still, clock is ticking, and I'll stay true to my word now I'm received confirmation from the ICO that they consider it a closed case.
Wait, what?
SE still hasn't complied and they consider it a closed case? How do they figure that?
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.
I thought of it first:
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
Lobivopis wrote:
Wait, what?
SE still hasn't complied and they consider it a closed case? How do they figure that?
I believe it is: ICO believes SE is really at fault for not providing the requested documents. Up until now they had the chance to provide them, but they didnt. Case is closed because effectively failed to provide what is required so they are guilty.
Recent Visitors: 341
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (341)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC