Moote

Delete the active .mmo file

Got to be St Kilda, not sure who's event it was, but the best event ever.

Social networking sites like Twitter are being used to target users who leave information about when they are away from home, many of us leave a will attend log for events; are we also at risk? Please Rob Me

There are log sheets here http://www.geocaching.com/seek/default.aspx

Moote you are such a hypocrite!! The above comment refers back to you making accusations over people being self appointed cache policemen, yet you have done this yourself on several occasions, only the other day you admitted to being a self appointed cache policeman, here's a reminder to your policing technique. Just because YOU thought it was dangerous doesn't mean it actually was and YOU had no right to remove it. Couple of other incidents spring to mind such a dry stone walls and latex!! In fact most of your heated arguments on here come across as a self appointed policeman on how and what should be done in caching. Haggis Hunter, not acts of cache policing, but an acts of common sense. The cache on the motorway bridge could have caused a serious accident on a motorway if it was knocked from the bridge onto a vehicle; somewhat different from someone's pet hate of caches which are temporary disabled for longer than they like. I'd rather remove a cache ASAP, in that situation and take the flack for that, than have someone injured through ignorance of the possible danger. As for the drystone wall, I was not policing this issue; I was defending a cachers placement of a cache which was claimed to be in a drystone wall, which was actually a mortared wall, the person who reported it was the cache police in that instance. As you have done neither of these two caches, how can you have the knowledge to pass judgement on either! Latex allergies are also an issue and can be life threatening See here, so again not policing but passing on useful information to people who are unaware of the seriousness of latex items placed in caches. Taken from this post from the afore mentioned thread - You are going to get bricks thrown at you, Nah Nah Nah Nah!!!! Oh I'm shaking in fear!

Taken from This post in another thread Moote you are such a hypocrite!! The above comment refers back to you making accusations over people being self appointed cache policemen, yet you have done this yourself on several occasions, only the other day you admitted to being a self appointed cache policeman, here's a reminder to your policing technique. Just because YOU thought it was dangerous doesn't mean it actually was and YOU had no right to remove it. Couple of other incidents spring to mind such a dry stone walls and latex!! In fact most of your heated arguments on here come across as a self appointed policeman on how and what should be done in caching. Haggis Hunter, not acts of cache policing, but an acts of common sense. The cache on the motorway bridge could have caused a serious accident on a motorway if it was knocked from the bridge onto a vehicle; somewhat different from someone's pet hate of caches which are temporary disabled for longer than they like. I'd rather remove a cache ASAP, in that situation and take the flack for that, than have someone injured through ignorance of the possible danger. As for the drystone wall, I was not policing this issue; I was defending a cachers placement of a cache which was claimed to be in a drystone wall, which was actually a mortared wall, the person who reported it was the cache police in that instance. As you have done neither of these two caches, how can you have the knowledge to pass judgement on either! Latex allergies are also an issue and can be life threatening See here, so again not policing but passing on useful information to people who are unaware of the seriousness of latex items placed in caches.

Bait the Trolls hahahahaha you make me laugh with your name and shame website Shame on you Web Rat!

The thread developed in to a reasonable debate about how some people take it up on themselves to be a Cache policeman, and how they are infringing people privacy by abusing 3rd party data without the permission of identifiable individuals, in contradiction to Data Protection Act 1998.

Pot? Kettle? You speak as if you have been here years, but somehow your profile shows a joining date of February 12, 2009, and you only have 7 finds to your name the last find you logged was 02 Apr 09, so I'm intrigued how well you know my history; maybe Neath Worthies are actually a sock-puppet.

This is a futile argument as the content of the quote has been kept on site. But iCache.co.uk is not a Groundspeak organisation, and is administered in the UK/EU and is using information without the acceptance of a person or persons consent.

You can't actually say that as it is not your copyright, it is Groundspeak's as you have agreed to their T&Cs, but if I quoted you off site then that might fall into a different issue.

I'm fully aware of the Data Protection Act and would suggest you revise, its a great law. To repeat what was mentioned above for those that what to research it all the info is available on gc.com. On your point with passing data to third parties see: (my bold) I'm not exactly sure what your angle is here, but look at it from my POV as I reply to someone who is displaying troll like activity while displaying a gun wielding avatar. You know how to win respect don't you One thing I learned today is not to take your posts seriously and treat them with the humour they deserve. BTW: Thanks for cracking up iCache hit count Unfortunately local law take precedent over US law, you have to perform your duty in accordance to UK and European law, as you provide this information as a UK/EU citizen. Ha ha ha "Troll like activity", from someone who is taking it off his own back to shame others, is more troll like, and I'm not bothered if you think I'm not winning your respect, because I can live in respect knowing that I have not tried to publicly admonish people for something which is a pet hate.

Under UK law you only need to identify a person, name address telephone no, is not required for that identity, just the matter of identifying who the individual is, then that data is protected by UK law. I have met a few people on that list, so therefore I have identified them. One person on the list I could take you to their house for a cup of English tea. It the list was hosted on GC.com it would be understood by a condition on joining, but the data has passed from that organisation to a 3rd party, in that case they have to be registered to use the data beyond it's original supplier I work with the data protection act everyday and as far as I'm aware nicknames are not classed as "data" neither is someones "personal name" unless it is connected with other "data" Then you will understand this definition within the act Data Protection Act 1998 CHAPTER 29 “personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified There has been both civil and criminal proceedings under the act, where people have just been identified by a photograph, see recent issues between Google with Google Street and the ICO, where Google stepped back from publishing faces and other parts of images, after consideration of the legal implications to the company. I have not given iCache.co.uk permission to publish or hold data on me, so I expect that data not ever to be used or held without permission. It's not about names, address's etc, it's about identification, and as I said I can clearly identify people on that list,

Under UK law you only need to identify a person, name address telephone no, is not required for that identity, just the matter of identifying who the individual is, then that data is protected by UK law. I have met a few people on that list, so therefore I have identified them. One person on the list I could take you to their house for a cup of English tea. It the list was hosted on GC.com it would be understood by a condition on joining, but the data has passed from that organisation to a 3rd party, in that case they have to be registered to use the data beyond it's original supplier

The information provided on that list is freely available to any geocachers who wants to browse around the regions, looking at disabled listings - It's not as though some 'secret information' has been divulged - It's simply been pulled together in a readily accessible format for anyone who's interested. Looking at some of those long disabled caches it's good to note that some cache owners have been proactive in keeping everyone informed regarding the status of the disabled cache by adding regular logs to keep geocachers and reviewers up to date. In doing this they're letting those interested know that the cache has not been forgotten and there's (usually) a reason for the long disablement. It's those cache owners who don't bother with this and then don't respond to the reviewer's warning note that end up with archived caches. MrsB If the person who is the site owner has an issue with any of the listed caches, the correct method would be to contact the reviewers or Groundspeak in private. Personally I have the ability to spot disabled caches, and I'm sure everyone has this ability, as it is a feature of the GC website; this list does not prevent that happening, or make it easier to undertake, it is someone's pet hate, which they want to embarrass or humiliate others with. It is worth noting that the site in question is run with the approval and knowledge of Groundspeak, who provide the site with the full UK data on a regular basis. So from what you are saying is that this is from a data source provided to iCache.co.uk. Are they manipulating that data from its original source, and are they taking steps to conceal the identify of individuals from that data when presented on their site? Just for your information, do you understand the definition of personal data, if not here it is: Data Protection Act 1998 CHAPTER 29 “personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified Now I can clearly identify people from you data set either directly or indirectly, so to publish this data you would require their permission, I would say that the data is being misused.

The information provided on that list is freely available to any geocachers who wants to browse around the regions, looking at disabled listings - It's not as though some 'secret information' has been divulged - It's simply been pulled together in a readily accessible format for anyone who's interested. Looking at some of those long disabled caches it's good to note that some cache owners have been proactive in keeping everyone informed regarding the status of the disabled cache by adding regular logs to keep geocachers and reviewers up to date. In doing this they're letting those interested know that the cache has not been forgotten and there's (usually) a reason for the long disablement. It's those cache owners who don't bother with this and then don't respond to the reviewer's warning note that end up with archived caches. MrsB If the person who is the site owner has an issue with any of the listed caches, the correct method would be to contact the reviewers or Groundspeak in private. Personally I have the ability to spot disabled caches, and I'm sure everyone has this ability, as it is a feature of the GC website; this list does not prevent that happening, or make it easier to undertake, it is someone's pet hate, which they want to embarrass or humiliate others with.

If you would have worded that post differently I would took the time to post a decent reply, but as you prefer to lower yourself to posting personal attacks this is the only response your getting. Personal attack .... laughs out loud ...... No I pointed out that someone is on a crusade which is not their business, Groundspeak run this site, no one else.

Oh the cache police, why would someone really think that they have the right to name and shame? Well I for one am pleased that there is a tidy up process in place and that it is being done. As for the public flogging I found it interesting nay amusing to look at the various sites and log histories. In fact I have now bookmarked the link for those rainy days when I need cheering up. You might be pleased but I think this person has no rights to publicly name and shame, they are not a reviewer, and they are not a Groundspeak employee; individuals have no rights to do this, it is up to Groundspeak and their reviewers to do this, which they do and in private via email requests. I believe that it is the actions of a small-minded individual who should spend their time more constructively, rather than go out on a pathetic crusade, if any of my caches ever appear on this list I will inform the website owner to remove them at once!

Oh the cache police, why would someone really think that they have the right to name and shame?

I'm with both Keehotee and Amberel on their points about the iPhone. I have to say, Apple rip off people in the way they market and sell the iPhone. Build cost is around £40 to purchase £400. I think these days if you add an "i" to your product you can make a fortune; that is why I'll be selling iPancakes tonight.

Who gave you the right to steal someone else's cache because in your opinion it was in an unsuitable position? I took Moote's comment to mean that the cache was posing a danger to traffic on the motorway below, if so then he's perfectly right to remove it. Ah! Thank you, I didn't know that's what he meant. Presumably he then placed it in a place close by that wasn't a danger to traffic and got the coordinates updated by the owner. As really there was no suitable alternate location, I did none of the above!

Who gave you the right to steal someone else's cache because in your opinion it was in an unsuitable position? Common sense gave me the right, if it had been accidentally knocked off whilst being found It could have landed on a car windscreen, possibly causing a serious accident. Removing it was hardly a major crime considering a possible could be worse outcome leaving it there! Only takes a little common sense to realise that a small heavy object and a car / cars travelling at 70mph are not a good combination; sometime I think that Geocachers fail to use that sense! Which implies that the cache placer, and the reviewer for that matter, are lacking in common sense whereas you have the monopoly. It must be wonderful to know that one is superior to us lesser mortals. A reviewer might not be on the ground, or have full information; the placer should have known better. I'm not claiming to be superior to anyone, just saying I noted an issue which I felt was serious enough to warrant the removal of the cache ASAP

Who gave you the right to steal someone else's cache because in your opinion it was in an unsuitable position? Common sense gave me the right, if it had been accidentally knocked off whilst being found It could have landed on a car windscreen, possibly causing a serious accident. Removing it was hardly a major crime considering a possible could be worse outcome leaving it there! Only takes a little common sense to realise that a small heavy object and a car / cars travelling at 70mph are not a good combination; sometime I think that Geocachers fail to use that sense!

Once saw a magnetic nano placed on a bridge over a motorway; that was dangerous, I removed it and reported the cache,

I think a cleverly placed Micro is a good challenge, but a Micro just because 35mm film cases are free, and you don't need to put trades in, well that is placing caches just to place caches. It gets me when there is a micro in the middle of a woods, in a place you could hide a bus!