In message <u9m4v3$n7jr$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:22:11 on Mon, 24 Jul
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 24/07/2023 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u9lk2h$kht1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:52 on Mon, 24 Jul
>>2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>
>>> Children below 16 in Germany are only allowed to go to
>>>pub/restaurants 'for the purpose of consuming a meal' with an 11pm
>>>curfew.

>> Pubs I can understand (and it as like that in England 30yrs ago. But
>>restaurants? Does McDonalds not have any outlets in Germany, where a
>>child is not allowed in only to have a milkshake?
>
>I think the invisible word is licensed. MacDonalds and other fast-food
>restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.

Places like Pizza Hut do. Which is amusing when in a dry county in the
USA because they don't change the menus, but everyone is supposed to
know the alcohol isn't available.
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/07/2023 16:29, Bob wrote:
>> On 24.07.23 17:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2023 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <u9lk2h$kht1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:52 on Mon, 24 Jul
>>>> 2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Children below 16 in Germany are only allowed to go to
>>>>> pub/restaurants 'for the purpose of consuming a meal' with an 11pm
>>>>> curfew.
>>>>
>>>> Pubs I can understand (and it as like that in England 30yrs ago. But
>>>> restaurants? Does McDonalds not have any outlets in Germany, where a
>>>> child is not allowed in only to have a milkshake?
>>>
>>> I think the invisible word is licensed. MacDonalds and other fast-food
>>> restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.
>>
>> They do in Germany.
>>
>
> Hadn't noticed but then I avoid MacDonalds like the plague in any country.
>
>

Don’t you use them for a McPee? They are handy for that.

On 24/07/2023 16:22, Graeme Wall wrote:

> MacDonalds and other fast-food
> restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.

Some continental ones do (did?)

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <u9mdjq$ofj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:46 on Mon, 24 Jul
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/07/2023 16:29, Bob wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 17:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2023 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <u9lk2h$kht1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:52 on Mon, 24 Jul
>>>>> 2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Children below 16 in Germany are only allowed to go to
>>>>>> pub/restaurants 'for the purpose of consuming a meal' with an 11pm
>>>>>> curfew.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pubs I can understand (and it as like that in England 30yrs ago. But
>>>>> restaurants? Does McDonalds not have any outlets in Germany, where a
>>>>> child is not allowed in only to have a milkshake?
>>>>
>>>> I think the invisible word is licensed. MacDonalds and other fast-food
>>>> restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.
>>>
>>> They do in Germany.
>>
>> Hadn't noticed but then I avoid MacDonalds like the plague in any country.
>
>Don’t you use them for a McPee? They are handy for that.

McDonalds(sic) are a godsend for anyone with toddlers in tow. Whether
they want to pee, or have a simple lunch, or use the play area (which
are admittedly more prominent in USA branches).

Go into one mid-morning Saturday and you are sure to see several
estranged dads doing their weekly "child visitation". Neither politic,
nor even possible, in the average pub. The chain once nicknamed "Happy
Vomiter", was also suitable, but they've all been closed since 1997. Or
Little Chef, not quite so much, because their service was always so slow
most of the audience would be getting very restless.

Where I live MacD's the only place open for Sunday breakfast (the nearby
Burger King doesn't open until 10am - despite being the eaterie attached
to a Travelodge) , and the demographic who once might have patronised a
Transport Cafe (RIP), gather.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u9mdjq$ofj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:46 on Mon, 24 Jul
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2023 16:29, Bob wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.23 17:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 24/07/2023 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u9lk2h$kht1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:52 on Mon, 24 Jul
>>>>>> 2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Children below 16 in Germany are only allowed to go to
>>>>>>> pub/restaurants 'for the purpose of consuming a meal' with an 11pm
>>>>>>> curfew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pubs I can understand (and it as like that in England 30yrs ago. But
>>>>>> restaurants? Does McDonalds not have any outlets in Germany, where a
>>>>>> child is not allowed in only to have a milkshake?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the invisible word is licensed. MacDonalds and other fast-food
>>>>> restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.
>>>>
>>>> They do in Germany.
>>>
>>> Hadn't noticed but then I avoid MacDonalds like the plague in any country.
>>
>> Don’t you use them for a McPee? They are handy for that.
>
> McDonalds(sic) are a godsend for anyone with toddlers in tow. Whether
> they want to pee, or have a simple lunch, or use the play area (which
> are admittedly more prominent in USA branches).
>
> Go into one mid-morning Saturday and you are sure to see several
> estranged dads doing their weekly "child visitation". Neither politic,
> nor even possible, in the average pub. The chain once nicknamed "Happy
> Vomiter", was also suitable, but they've all been closed since 1997.

Ah, Happy Eater.

I always though it was a brave choice for a chain of restaurants to go with
a logo of someone sticking their finger down their throat.

My abiding memory of them as a child was on the long car journey back from
a family holiday in Cornwall, arriving at a Happy Eater to be told they’d
be very happy to serve us, but they had no forks.

My ever resourceful mother pulled out the picnic cutlery from the car and
we used that.

As the years have gone by, I now frequently remember that visit and come to
wander how on earth a restaurant could ever find itself open and trading
but without the ability to provide forks…

Or
> Little Chef, not quite so much, because their service was always so slow
> most of the audience would be getting very restless.

Known by my family as Little Thief because their prices became astronomical
in relation to what you got.

>
> Where I live MacD's the only place open for Sunday breakfast (the nearby
> Burger King doesn't open until 10am - despite being the eaterie attached
> to a Travelodge) , and the demographic who once might have patronised a
> Transport Cafe (RIP), gather.

UK Burger King have never really embraced the breakfast market in the same
way the USA restaurants do.

My fast food days are generally over, (though I can be tempted by a
Filet-o-Fish…) , but in the 90s Wendy’s had a few UK locations which I
always rated quite highly.

Lew

According to Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>:
>On 24/07/2023 16:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> MacDonalds and other fast-food
>> restaurants don't normally serve alcohol.
>
>Some continental ones do (did?)

They sure do in Czechia https://www.mcdonalds.cz/menu/napoje/pilsner-urquell/

And Spain https://mcdonalds.es/productos/bebidas/cerveza

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 21/07/2023 13:59, Roland Perry wrote:
> Normally, Germany is more concerned about individual rights than the UK.
> But as a native, do you know different?

That's why German is a "black hole" in the coverage of Google
Streetview: they are concerned about infringing the privacy of people
who are seen on the streets and about showing people's front gardens and
houses, even with the normal Google blurring of faces, car numbers,
house numbers/names. Big cities have coverage, but huge areas elsewhere
are a complete void.

I believe dashcams are illegal - hopefully only to *use* rather than to
*possess*, otherwise you've got a problem if you can legally use a
camera in a neighbouring country and want to cross Germany to another
dashcam-legal country - are you even allowed to 'transport' the
switched-off camera through Germany?

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:22:59 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 21/07/2023 13:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Normally, Germany is more concerned about individual rights than the UK.
>> But as a native, do you know different?
>
>That's why German is a "black hole" in the coverage of Google
>Streetview: they are concerned about infringing the privacy of people
>who are seen on the streets and about showing people's front gardens and
>houses, even with the normal Google blurring of faces, car numbers,
>house numbers/names. Big cities have coverage, but huge areas elsewhere
>are a complete void.
>
>I believe dashcams are illegal - hopefully only to *use* rather than to
>*possess*, otherwise you've got a problem if you can legally use a
>camera in a neighbouring country and want to cross Germany to another
>dashcam-legal country - are you even allowed to 'transport' the
>switched-off camera through Germany?
>
Dashcams aren't illegal in Germany; it is retaining or using their
recordings for other than their primary purpose which can get you into
trouble (as is possible in the UK but on a more restricted basis). As
in the UK, they can get you a discount on your insurance.
https://nextbase.co.uk/hub/european-dash-cam-legality-2022-/

"Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:15v4dipa2nmetah8qtor8klq9md0bdqf4b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:22:59 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 21/07/2023 13:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Normally, Germany is more concerned about individual rights than the UK.
>>> But as a native, do you know different?
>>
>>That's why German is a "black hole" in the coverage of Google
>>Streetview: they are concerned about infringing the privacy of people
>>who are seen on the streets and about showing people's front gardens and
>>houses, even with the normal Google blurring of faces, car numbers,
>>house numbers/names. Big cities have coverage, but huge areas elsewhere
>>are a complete void.
>>
>>I believe dashcams are illegal - hopefully only to *use* rather than to
>>*possess*, otherwise you've got a problem if you can legally use a
>>camera in a neighbouring country and want to cross Germany to another
>>dashcam-legal country - are you even allowed to 'transport' the
>>switched-off camera through Germany?
>>
> Dashcams aren't illegal in Germany; it is retaining or using their
> recordings for other than their primary purpose which can get you into
> trouble (as is possible in the UK but on a more restricted basis). As
> in the UK, they can get you a discount on your insurance.
> https://nextbase.co.uk/hub/european-dash-cam-legality-2022-/

Ah, right. So you can keep the footage until you've submitted it to an
insurance company in connection with a claim, but then you must delete it,
and you can't submit it to Youtube as one of those "stupid driving"
compilations or as a record of a journey. That's more lenient than I'd
understood: I'm sure I've read of some countries where possession of a
dashcam (even if it is not connected to power) is an offence. I'd thought
that Germany was one of those countries, but evidently wrong.

I think we've got it about right in the UK. Personally I treat everywhere
outside the walls of my house as "public" and wouldn't *expect* privacy.
There are probably subtle nuances of "public": I'd expect the people would
be able to glance into my garden over a low fence or from a neighbour's
upstairs window, but I would be very annoyed if they camped outside with
long lenses watching my every move. In the street I'd expect no privacy if I
was walking or cycling (and would behave accordingly) but I'd expect a
little privacy inside a car where people may happen to see me but they
mustn't peer in if I'm parked.

Sadly a lot of people seem to expect maximum-level privacy everywhere, and
then throw a hissy fit if they happen to be see kissing or bonking or
handing over suspicious-looking brown envelopes of cash in a public place.

The blurring in Google Streetview is right to blur faces and number-plates,
but it's a shame that the same algorithm blurs house names/numbers and
street-name signs, because it makes it very difficult to find a specific
house on Streetview before you set off on a journey. My mum is dead chuffed
that her car has been caught on the latest Streetview images as she was
driving out of their drive. Face and number-plate are blurred, but we know
it's her - and it preserves for posterity a view of a car that she'd owned
for 26 years and which had to go to the rest-home for knackered cars (having
failed its MOT very badly) shortly afterwards.

On 15/08/2023 09:54, NY wrote:
> There are probably subtle nuances of "public": I'd expect the people
> would be able to glance into my garden over a low fence or from a
> neighbour's upstairs window, but I would be very annoyed if they camped
> outside with long lenses watching my every move.

I quite frequently go around with my 500MM lens on my camera and have
been surprised I have never had any problems!

I took some pictures of a building with some historical importance
(normal lens on camera). I was careful not to step through the gate and
blanked out number plates but the owner complained and wanted them
removed. The organisation that owned the website backed me and said I
had every right to take pictures of the building from a public place.

Ironically I had visited the sites some years before with some others
before he bought the building. We were given complete access to the
building, even going up on the roof.

Only place we did not access was a large safe but no one had the
combination.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:54:19 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>The blurring in Google Streetview is right to blur faces and number-plates,
>but it's a shame that the same algorithm blurs house names/numbers and
>street-name signs, because it makes it very difficult to find a specific
>house on Streetview before you set off on a journey. My mum is dead chuffed
>that her car has been caught on the latest Streetview images as she was
>driving out of their drive. Face and number-plate are blurred, but we know
>it's her - and it preserves for posterity a view of a car that she'd owned
>for 26 years and which had to go to the rest-home for knackered cars (having
>failed its MOT very badly) shortly afterwards.

The "previous years" imagery in Google Streetview has three of my cars in
four different locations. They don't have my current car yet, though.

Mark

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:54:19 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The blurring in Google Streetview is right to blur faces and number-plates,
>> but it's a shame that the same algorithm blurs house names/numbers and
>> street-name signs, because it makes it very difficult to find a specific
>> house on Streetview before you set off on a journey. My mum is dead chuffed
>> that her car has been caught on the latest Streetview images as she was
>> driving out of their drive. Face and number-plate are blurred, but we know
>> it's her - and it preserves for posterity a view of a car that she'd owned
>> for 26 years and which had to go to the rest-home for knackered cars (having
>> failed its MOT very badly) shortly afterwards.
>
> The "previous years" imagery in Google Streetview has three of my cars in
> four different locations. They don't have my current car yet, though.

All the photos outside our house have cars of mine in them, three of them,
and one of relatives’. I was on one year as well, but since I didn’t spot
the Gmobile it’s almost all of my back.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:53:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>I took some pictures of a building with some historical importance
>(normal lens on camera). I was careful not to step through the gate and
>blanked out number plates but the owner complained and wanted them
>removed. The organisation that owned the website backed me and said I
>had every right to take pictures of the building from a public place.

I run a website which relies on user-contributed photos of buildings with
some historic importance. I regularly get complaints from owners saying that
they didn't give permission for the photos to be taken. I usually reply and
explain that their permission is not necessary. Sometimes they threaten to
sue me, in which case I reply and suggest that they get professional legal
advice before proceeding. A few times, they've obviously also complained to
their MP, who has then written to me (or, rather, got their staff to write
to me) reiterating the complaint, on the expectation that most people do
typically roll over when faced with a letter on House of Commons headed
paper. I have two stock letters with which I reply, one for Conservative MPs
and one for Labour (I've never been contacted by an MP for another party),
explaining why I'm not going to do what they are asking.

The best complaint I ever got, though, was from a gentleman who owns a manor
house in the north of England. His complaint was not that photographs of his
house had been submitted to the site, but, rather, that one had been
miscaptioned in a way which made it appear that the servants' quarters were
the main house. For once, I was happy to accede to his request to make the
necessary amendments.

Mark

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:53:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I took some pictures of a building with some historical importance
>> (normal lens on camera). I was careful not to step through the gate and
>> blanked out number plates but the owner complained and wanted them
>> removed. The organisation that owned the website backed me and said I
>> had every right to take pictures of the building from a public place.
>
> I run a website which relies on user-contributed photos of buildings with
> some historic importance. I regularly get complaints from owners saying that
> they didn't give permission for the photos to be taken. I usually reply and
> explain that their permission is not necessary. Sometimes they threaten to
> sue me, in which case I reply and suggest that they get professional legal
> advice before proceeding. A few times, they've obviously also complained to
> their MP, who has then written to me (or, rather, got their staff to write
> to me) reiterating the complaint, on the expectation that most people do
> typically roll over when faced with a letter on House of Commons headed
> paper. I have two stock letters with which I reply, one for Conservative MPs
> and one for Labour (I've never been contacted by an MP for another party),
> explaining why I'm not going to do what they are asking.
>
> The best complaint I ever got, though, was from a gentleman who owns a manor
> house in the north of England. His complaint was not that photographs of his
> house had been submitted to the site, but, rather, that one had been
> miscaptioned in a way which made it appear that the servants' quarters were
> the main house. For once, I was happy to accede to his request to make the
> necessary amendments.
>
> Mark
>

What’s the site?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 20:42:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>> The best complaint I ever got, though, was from a gentleman who owns a manor
>> house in the north of England. His complaint was not that photographs of his
>> house had been submitted to the site, but, rather, that one had been
>> miscaptioned in a way which made it appear that the servants' quarters were
>> the main house. For once, I was happy to accede to his request to make the
>> necessary amendments.
>
>What’s the site?

https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk

I'm not going to say which photo prompted the above complaint, though :-)

Mark

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:15v4dipa2nmetah8qtor8klq9md0bdqf4b@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:22:59 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/07/2023 13:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Normally, Germany is more concerned about individual rights than the UK.
>>>> But as a native, do you know different?
>>>
>>> That's why German is a "black hole" in the coverage of Google
>>> Streetview: they are concerned about infringing the privacy of people
>>> who are seen on the streets and about showing people's front gardens and
>>> houses, even with the normal Google blurring of faces, car numbers,
>>> house numbers/names. Big cities have coverage, but huge areas elsewhere
>>> are a complete void.
>>>
>>> I believe dashcams are illegal - hopefully only to *use* rather than to
>>> *possess*, otherwise you've got a problem if you can legally use a
>>> camera in a neighbouring country and want to cross Germany to another
>>> dashcam-legal country - are you even allowed to 'transport' the
>>> switched-off camera through Germany?
>>>
>> Dashcams aren't illegal in Germany; it is retaining or using their
>> recordings for other than their primary purpose which can get you into
>> trouble (as is possible in the UK but on a more restricted basis). As
>> in the UK, they can get you a discount on your insurance.
>> https://nextbase.co.uk/hub/european-dash-cam-legality-2022-/
>
> Ah, right. So you can keep the footage until you've submitted it to an
> insurance company in connection with a claim, but then you must delete it,
> and you can't submit it to Youtube as one of those "stupid driving"
> compilations or as a record of a journey. That's more lenient than I'd
> understood: I'm sure I've read of some countries where possession of a
> dashcam (even if it is not connected to power) is an offence. I'd thought
> that Germany was one of those countries, but evidently wrong.
>
> I think we've got it about right in the UK. Personally I treat everywhere
> outside the walls of my house as "public" and wouldn't *expect* privacy.
> There are probably subtle nuances of "public": I'd expect the people would
> be able to glance into my garden over a low fence or from a neighbour's
> upstairs window, but I would be very annoyed if they camped outside with
> long lenses watching my every move. In the street I'd expect no privacy if I
> was walking or cycling (and would behave accordingly) but I'd expect a
> little privacy inside a car where people may happen to see me but they
> mustn't peer in if I'm parked.
>
> Sadly a lot of people seem to expect maximum-level privacy everywhere, and
> then throw a hissy fit if they happen to be see kissing or bonking or
> handing over suspicious-looking brown envelopes of cash in a public place.
>

We are used to relatively few people having expensive lenses that can
reveal good detail from a covert position, and most people who do have such
equipment use it for a hobby such as wildlife
photography , photographing aircraft and similar.
However the arrival of sophisticated drones has given a new platform from
which detailed photos and videos can be made, You Tube is full of such
videos and while many are done well and responsibly
and cover interesting subjects like old Railways and Canals there are are
a few people whose main aim appears to be aggravating staff and owners of
various places like factories by flying the drone over the premises which
apparently in most circumstances is legal. . Occasionally one gets duffed
up but it is hardly surprising , I suppose eventually the situation may
have the legislation strengthened but probably after one of these over
entitled nuisances has caused an incident where their drone crashes and
causes a fire in oil refinery

GH

On 15/08/2023 22:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 20:42:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The best complaint I ever got, though, was from a gentleman who owns a manor
>>> house in the north of England. His complaint was not that photographs of his
>>> house had been submitted to the site, but, rather, that one had been
>>> miscaptioned in a way which made it appear that the servants' quarters were
>>> the main house. For once, I was happy to accede to his request to make the
>>> necessary amendments.
>>
>> What’s the site?
>
> https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk

Know it well.

>
> I'm not going to say which photo prompted the above complaint, though :-)
>
> Mark

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 15/08/2023 21:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:53:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I run a website which relies on user-contributed photos of buildings with
> some historic importance. I regularly get complaints from owners saying that
> they didn't give permission for the photos to be taken. I usually reply and
> explain that their permission is not necessary. Sometimes they threaten to
> sue me, in which case I reply and suggest that they get professional legal
> advice before proceeding. A few times, they've obviously also complained to
> their MP, who has then written to me (or, rather, got their staff to write
> to me) reiterating the complaint, on the expectation that most people do
> typically roll over when faced with a letter on House of Commons headed
> paper. I have two stock letters with which I reply, one for Conservative MPs
> and one for Labour (I've never been contacted by an MP for another party),
> explaining why I'm not going to do what they are asking.

What's the main difference between the 2 letters?

James

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 19:35:15 +0100, James Heaton <heatonandmoore@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 15/08/2023 21:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:53:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> I run a website which relies on user-contributed photos of buildings with
>> some historic importance. I regularly get complaints from owners saying that
>> they didn't give permission for the photos to be taken. I usually reply and
>> explain that their permission is not necessary. Sometimes they threaten to
>> sue me, in which case I reply and suggest that they get professional legal
>> advice before proceeding. A few times, they've obviously also complained to
>> their MP, who has then written to me (or, rather, got their staff to write
>> to me) reiterating the complaint, on the expectation that most people do
>> typically roll over when faced with a letter on House of Commons headed
>> paper. I have two stock letters with which I reply, one for Conservative MPs
>> and one for Labour (I've never been contacted by an MP for another party),
>> explaining why I'm not going to do what they are asking.
>
>What's the main difference between the 2 letters?

Well, I am, as it happens, also a Conservative local councillor. So the
letter to a Conservative MP includes a paragraph in which I state that, as a
Conservative councillor and activist as well as an IT professional, I am
well aware of the conflict between those who see the Internet as a threat
and those who see it as holding the key to new business models and new
opportunities to empower communities with the information they need. I then
put in a paragraph about the work that recent Conservative administrations
have done in opening up government data, for example the creation of the
Open Government Licence and the release of many previously closed datasets.
And I end by inviting them to support the work of their Conservative
colleagues, including myself, in taking a forward-looking view of the
Internet rather than being unduly influenced by those with an ingrained
negative view.

For a Labour MP, on the other hand, I look up the estimated price of the
house in question on Zoopla, and then in my letter I cite that, pointing out
that someone who almost certainly earns more as an individual than my
company's annual revenue is attempting to shut down an entirely legitimate
use of non-personal and non-private data simply because they feel that they
are more important than the rest of us. I point out that there are over
285,000 photos on the site and the only people who ever complain about them
are rich bastards in fancy houses, who are hardly the sort of people that a
Labour MP ought to be siding with against people who just enjoy taking
photos and sharing them with everyone else. Well, not quite in those words,
but that's what I trust they'll interpret it to mean.

Mark

On 16/08/2023 22:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 19:35:15 +0100, James Heaton <heatonandmoore@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/08/2023 21:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:53:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I run a website which relies on user-contributed photos of buildings with
>>> some historic importance. I regularly get complaints from owners saying that
>>> they didn't give permission for the photos to be taken. I usually reply and
>>> explain that their permission is not necessary. Sometimes they threaten to
>>> sue me, in which case I reply and suggest that they get professional legal
>>> advice before proceeding. A few times, they've obviously also complained to
>>> their MP, who has then written to me (or, rather, got their staff to write
>>> to me) reiterating the complaint, on the expectation that most people do
>>> typically roll over when faced with a letter on House of Commons headed
>>> paper. I have two stock letters with which I reply, one for Conservative MPs
>>> and one for Labour (I've never been contacted by an MP for another party),
>>> explaining why I'm not going to do what they are asking.
>>
>> What's the main difference between the 2 letters?
>
> Well, I am, as it happens, also a Conservative local councillor. So the
> letter to a Conservative MP includes a paragraph in which I state that, as a
> Conservative councillor and activist as well as an IT professional, I am
> well aware of the conflict between those who see the Internet as a threat
> and those who see it as holding the key to new business models and new
> opportunities to empower communities with the information they need. I then
> put in a paragraph about the work that recent Conservative administrations
> have done in opening up government data, for example the creation of the
> Open Government Licence and the release of many previously closed datasets.
> And I end by inviting them to support the work of their Conservative
> colleagues, including myself, in taking a forward-looking view of the
> Internet rather than being unduly influenced by those with an ingrained
> negative view.
>
> For a Labour MP, on the other hand, I look up the estimated price of the
> house in question on Zoopla, and then in my letter I cite that, pointing out
> that someone who almost certainly earns more as an individual than my
> company's annual revenue is attempting to shut down an entirely legitimate
> use of non-personal and non-private data simply because they feel that they
> are more important than the rest of us. I point out that there are over
> 285,000 photos on the site and the only people who ever complain about them
> are rich bastards in fancy houses, who are hardly the sort of people that a
> Labour MP ought to be siding with against people who just enjoy taking
> photos and sharing them with everyone else. Well, not quite in those words,
> but that's what I trust they'll interpret it to mean.

Thanks for the detail!

I had grasped you were a Cllr but didn't know which party.

Yes that would seem to be pretty effective targeting of audience!

James

On 15 Aug 2023 23:52:16 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:15v4dipa2nmetah8qtor8klq9md0bdqf4b@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:22:59 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2023 13:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Normally, Germany is more concerned about individual rights than the UK.
>>>>> But as a native, do you know different?
>>>>
>>>> That's why German is a "black hole" in the coverage of Google
>>>> Streetview: they are concerned about infringing the privacy of people
>>>> who are seen on the streets and about showing people's front gardens and
>>>> houses, even with the normal Google blurring of faces, car numbers,
>>>> house numbers/names. Big cities have coverage, but huge areas elsewhere
>>>> are a complete void.
>>>>
>>>> I believe dashcams are illegal - hopefully only to *use* rather than to
>>>> *possess*, otherwise you've got a problem if you can legally use a
>>>> camera in a neighbouring country and want to cross Germany to another
>>>> dashcam-legal country - are you even allowed to 'transport' the
>>>> switched-off camera through Germany?
>>>>
>>> Dashcams aren't illegal in Germany; it is retaining or using their
>>> recordings for other than their primary purpose which can get you into
>>> trouble (as is possible in the UK but on a more restricted basis). As
>>> in the UK, they can get you a discount on your insurance.
>>> https://nextbase.co.uk/hub/european-dash-cam-legality-2022-/
>>
>> Ah, right. So you can keep the footage until you've submitted it to an
>> insurance company in connection with a claim, but then you must delete it,
>> and you can't submit it to Youtube as one of those "stupid driving"
>> compilations or as a record of a journey. That's more lenient than I'd
>> understood: I'm sure I've read of some countries where possession of a
>> dashcam (even if it is not connected to power) is an offence. I'd thought
>> that Germany was one of those countries, but evidently wrong.
>>
>> I think we've got it about right in the UK. Personally I treat everywhere
>> outside the walls of my house as "public" and wouldn't *expect* privacy.
>> There are probably subtle nuances of "public": I'd expect the people would
>> be able to glance into my garden over a low fence or from a neighbour's
>> upstairs window, but I would be very annoyed if they camped outside with
>> long lenses watching my every move. In the street I'd expect no privacy if I
>> was walking or cycling (and would behave accordingly) but I'd expect a
>> little privacy inside a car where people may happen to see me but they
>> mustn't peer in if I'm parked.
>>
>> Sadly a lot of people seem to expect maximum-level privacy everywhere, and
>> then throw a hissy fit if they happen to be see kissing or bonking or
>> handing over suspicious-looking brown envelopes of cash in a public place.
>>
>
>We are used to relatively few people having expensive lenses that can
>reveal good detail from a covert position, and most people who do have such
>equipment use it for a hobby such as wildlife
>photography , photographing aircraft and similar.
>However the arrival of sophisticated drones has given a new platform from
>which detailed photos and videos can be made, You Tube is full of such
>videos and while many are done well and responsibly
>and cover interesting subjects like old Railways and Canals there are are
>a few people whose main aim appears to be aggravating staff and owners of
>various places like factories by flying the drone over the premises which
>apparently in most circumstances is legal.
>
A drone over 250g must not be flown within 150m (vertical or
horizontal) of a building. As with full-size aircraft, flying over
another's property is a trespass unless it counts as innocent passage;
AFAIR the latter WRT drones generally goes by the separation
requirements.

>Occasionally one gets duffed
>up but it is hardly surprising , I suppose eventually the situation may
>have the legislation strengthened but probably after one of these over
>entitled nuisances has caused an incident where their drone crashes and
>causes a fire in oil refinery
>
>GH
>