I AM NOT AMUSED

[+Matrix]

I am very annoyed at the cache police and a certain reviewer at the moment so much so that I am going to demand a refund on my newly renewed premium membership.

 

get a life and give people with a life a chance to do something

[+ReadyOrNot]

I am very annoyed at the cache police and a certain reviewer at the moment so much so that I am going to demand a refund on my newly renewed premium membership.

 

get a life and give people with a life a chance to do something

 

You going to give us a little more information? Did you submit a cache that does not meet the listing requirements?

[+Matrix]

Just annoyed that some caches are allowed to be unavailable for a long time and others are not .

 

And it is not even one of my caches .

 

Still its good to vent and I am having a lovely time archiving some caches

 

Sod it I say

[+Amberel]

... I am having a lovely time archiving some caches

That's logical .

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Matrix]

... I am having a lovely time archiving some caches

That's logical .

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Perfectly logical in my mind or so the voices tell me

 

edited to add ..it also saves the cache police from eye strain trawling the listings for caches to complain about

Edited February 16, 2010 by Matrix

[+Gushoneybun]

I am very annoyed at the cache police and a certain reviewer at the moment so much so that I am going to demand a refund on my newly renewed premium membership.

 

get a life and give people with a life a chance to do something

 

 

Give us a clue then!

[+Team Noodles]

I am very annoyed at the cache police and a certain reviewer at the moment so much so that I am going to demand a refund on my newly renewed premium membership.

 

get a life and give people with a life a chance to do something

 

Quoting a wise person (source a different forum) :

 

""

I'll make this Statement again, The maintenance of owned caches, must take first priority. the order of priority should be

 

i: Maintaining Owned caches

ii: Finding caches

iii: Placing Caches

""

 

so yeah, what he said

[Deceangi]

Just annoyed that some caches are allowed to be unavailable for a long time and others are not .

 

And it is not even one of my caches .

 

Still its good to vent and I am having a lovely time archiving some caches

 

Sod it I say

 

Here's some cold facts for you

 

Less than a month ago there was over 1,300 caches Disabled over 2 months. Now remembering each cache has to be physically checked by a Reviewer, before being warned [something which means hours of work]. Between us by posting warnings to the longest Disabled caches. That number is down to around 900 and dropping. Eventually every cache Disabled over 2 months, without a justifiable reason will be warned and given time to either Maintain and Enable, Voluntarily Archive, or Post a note explaining why the cache needs to remain disabled. Any cache where the owner fails to take one of the following actions will be Archived on the grounds it is not being Maintained and as such has been abandoned.

 

As there is now a full team of UK Reviewers, and we have access to resources to do the job, we are now able to get on top of and keep on top of Long Term Disabled caches. Benefiting the whole community. Who will know that they can put a cache into their GPSr or PDA, and have a high expectation that the cache will still be enabled and active in 3-4-5-6 months time.

 

But hey the alternative is caches Disabled, and ignored by their owners. Personally I know which I prefer

 

Here's another cold fact for you. I did the first Long Term Disable sweep in the UK, in 2006. And caught caches Disabled in 2001. Pulling around 127 caches. The last full sweep was probably done late 2007 early 2008, and pulled 200+ caches. And took me around 20-30 hours to complete. As you can see with the extremely heavy workload, it was impossible to keep on top of Long Term Disabled caches. So they got out of hand. As stated with a full team, and extra resources, this has now become practical.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that some cachers are being picked on, when things are totally different. The warnings started with the Longest Disabled, working down the list and ending up with the youngest Long Term Disabled. Where a owner can provide a genuine reason, the cache is bypassed.

 

Is this is due to a webcam cache, Disabled for 8 months due to the webcam being out of action. A webcam cache relies on the finder taking a picture of themselves with that webcam. As the webcam had been down for 8 months, there was no cache to find for 8 months. And it's not something the owner of the webcam cache can resolve. As the cache owner was not able to confirm with the webcam owner that the camera was ever going to return to being active. There was no justifiable reason to keep it Disabled. So the owner voluntarily Archived it.

 

And just to make clear, all the caches involved in this sweep have not been reported by responsible acting members of the community [sorry the term cache police is not justified]. But are listed on a useful resource. Each owner having ample opportunity to action their cache(s), so they only have themselves to blame.

 

Everyone is being treated exactly the same, so I hope the OP reconsiders his stance

 

Deci

[+Yorkie30]

Just annoyed that some caches are allowed to be unavailable for a long time and others are not .

 

And it is not even one of my caches .

 

Still its good to vent and I am having a lovely time archiving some caches

 

Sod it I say

 

If its not your cache, if its disabled, why are you so upset? Is the cache owner up set too or have they decided to let it be removed?

 

[+maxkim]

We have 150 caches and I admit we have been 'caught' the odd time....but 'It's a fair cop' springs to mind.... We should have dropped a note on the caches concerned, and not had Dave have to trawl through and drop a note. We totally agree with his statement.... None maintained caches should be archived, they help no-one. Regards MaxKim.

[+Stuey]

Is this is due to a webcam cache, Disabled for 8 months due to the webcam being out of action. A webcam cache relies on the finder taking a picture of themselves with that webcam. As the webcam had been down for 8 months, there was no cache to find for 8 months. And it's not something the owner of the webcam cache can resolve. As the cache owner was not able to confirm with the webcam owner that the camera was ever going to return to being active. There was no justifiable reason to keep it Disabled. So the owner voluntarily Archived it.

 

Ooooh, how exciting.... my (adopted) webcam cache Cardiff, by any chance? If so.... the webcam has been unavailable for a long time but I've posted fairly regular notes to the page while I've tried to get info on the webcam. The fact is, it would have been archived years ago had I not adopted it as the original placer doesn't cache any more, but now the webcam is gone, so is the cache. It's a pity, but inevitable.

[+Matrix]

I thought about explaining but whats the point I have decided to show my annoyance in another way .

 

sorry to have wasted so many peoples time reading an irrelevant thread started by an annoying person with little else in his life but to whine and bitch about a trivial matter.

 

The Mods can lock this if they so wish.

[+pklong]

I don't think the reviewers are at fault here, after all if it's gone it's gone. Direct your anger at the frog for disallowing this cache type.

[+HouseOfDragons]

I had one disabled from last summer after it was muggled twice in quick succession. Every time I walked past the cache location (which was around once a week!) I tried to work out a better place or a better hide to avoid archiving it. I got my wrist-slap email and just archived it immediately. Not a big issue as far as I'm concerned, I really don't see the problem. If I come up with a brainwave, I'll simply rehide a new cache there.

[+Amberel]

I thought about explaining but whats the point I have decided to show my annoyance in another way.

If it was Stuey's webcam cache, and if the webcam has been gone for 8 months, then I'm mystified as to why you would be annoyed. If it's not that one, then please ignore this.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Deceangi]

I must apologise to everyone for unintentionally misleading them , since posting I've had the correct cache pointed out to me. Whilst the OP did not own the cache, someone close to him did.

 

In my defence,with over 300 long term Disabled caches actioned by us recently, the webcam cache was the only one I personaly was aware of had caused angst. For other than the owner.

 

Once again I apologise to everyone for unintentionally misleading them. But would point out the cache in question was warned and as the owner had not taken any action, was archived 10 days later.

 

Deci

[+purple_pineapple]

I must apologise to everyone for unintentionally misleading them , since posting I've had the correct cache pointed out to me. Whilst the OP did not own the cache, someone close to him did.

 

In my defence,with over 300 long term Disabled caches actioned by us recently, the webcam cache was the only one I personaly was aware of had caused angst. For other than the owner.

 

Once again I apologise to everyone for unintentionally misleading them. But would point out the cache in question was warned and as the owner had not taken any action, was archived 10 days later.

 

Deci

 

Fair play to Deci for apologising, however the points in his post remain valid, regardless of which cache we are talking about! In fact, unless it was another webcam or virtual, (where many feel we should allow a small amount of slack -rightly or wrongly - to keep them running if possible), there is even less reason to be unhappy!

 

I too have had the 'wrist slap' e-mail, which did its job and prompted me to resolve it. I think I maintained it, but I can't remember for certain!

[+Moote]

 

http://www.icache.co.uk/charts/longest-td-caches/

 

 

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

[+Simply Paul]

...For those that don't know a list of the 100 oldest temp disabled caches (which have been out of action for over 2 months) is publicly available for all to see here: http://www.icache.co.uk/charts/longest-td-caches/

Interesting list. I'm slightly amazed none of my caches are on it. On topic, I'm sure the reviewers do all they can to accommodate genuine reasons for a cache being out-of-order for extended periods, but in the case of the webcam there has to be a limit. I'm glad there's an attitude of 'grandfathered' for at least one inactive camera webcam cache though. I wonder if, should the Cardiff camera come back to life, whether the cache can be unarchived - which is always an option for archived physical caches when/if they get replaced or refreshed. Assuming the problem was one of maintenance alone.

[+londontavern]

 

http://www.icache.co.uk/charts/longest-td-caches/

 

 

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.

Edited February 17, 2010 by londontavern

[+Moote]

 

http://www.icache.co.uk/charts/longest-td-caches/

 

 

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!

[+The Blorenges]

 

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!

 

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

[+Moote]

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!

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.

[+Moote]

 

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!

 

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.

[+JustAlan]

 

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!

 

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.

[+drdick&vick]

 

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!

 

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 the list emabarrases cache owners to get out and sort their caches out then so be it!!

 

Maybe a friend of a cache owner who is listed on there will notice and jog the owner's memory.

 

Anything that stops caches being TD'd for months and months without any explanation.

[+The Haywood Hornet]

I think it is far more annoying when you search for a cache which has obviously not been available for well over 6 months (at least that is when the DNF logs started) and has not been disabled. I spent some time looking for one such cache on Saturday, before I read the previous logs.

I wont name it on here but I am very tempted to let the reviewers know which one it is and as I didn't post a DNF, I doubt anybody can work out which one it is.

[Deceangi]

 

http://www.icache.co.uk/charts/longest-td-caches/

 

 

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!

 

There are currently over 900 caches on that list, the public view is restricted to the top 100 in every category to avoid a missive strain on the server. The Reviewers have extended access to the Long Term Disabled cache list. If your cache(s) have been disabled for over 2 months then it's on the extended list, and we are working our way to it.

 

No icache is not Groundspeak or a Reviewer, it is simply a Stats site. Providing al list of caches Disabled longer than 2 months is just a Stat. This was available on G:UK as a filter, the only difference is that instead of having to go through several menu's to filter the caches, the option is available in the navigation list.

 

icache is providing a valuable resource to the the community, the extended option for the Reviewers being a extra resource. Currently the ability to list all Archived caches in the UK is being worked upon [the data is currently being collected].

 

icache has permission off Groundspeak to use the data to provide various stats. Groundspeak specifically provides that Data twice a week to icache. If you look at the bottom of each page, you'll see

 

Use of Geocaching.com data is subject to the Geocaching.com Terms of Use Agreement located at: http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

Groundspeak Pocket Query uploads permitted under Data License Agreement with Groundspeak Inc.

 

if any of my caches ever appear on this list I will inform the website owner to remove them at once!

 

Sorry but if a cache you own ends up on that list, and you try to have it hidden. It sounds like you have a personal issue with it being know that your not maintaining the cache. If there is a justifiable reason for it to be Disabled over 2 months, that would be quickly obvious from the Owner Logs regarding the status of the cache. So there would be no reason to hide the fact that the cache was disabled.

 

Sorry Moote but I do not see any cache Disabled for over 2 months, should be hidden from the community, if that cache is not a PMO. And even then it should be available for PM accounts. If you have a justifiable reason to keep the cache Disabled, there is nothing to hide. The only reason I can see to hide such a cache, is if the owner has not maintained it, and does not wish the community to know that.

 

Lets make it clear the Guidelines which all caches listed on this site, state

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

 

A few weeks means what? Two to three weeks, the UK Reviewers take that to mean 2 months/eight weeks. icache only lists caches Disabled over eight weeks, in line with the way the UK Reviewers apply the Guidelines. If your cache has been Disabled for over eight weeks, and there is no justifiable reason for the cache to be Disabled. You can not expect that fact to be hidden, as all it is doing is highlighting that you have not Maintained your cache as required by the Guidelines.

 

As for your comment

 

the correct method would be to contact the reviewers or Groundspeak in private

 

Groundspeak provide 2 tools for the community to use, both public ones. Needs Maintenance Logs and Needs Archiving Logs. Both of which are correct methods, My colleagues and myself, do get caches reported via email, and any reported the Groundspeak unless it is a issue which needs a Lackeys attention. Is passed to the local reviewer.

 

Both methods of communicating a issue with a cache can generate angst by the cache owner, which in the case of the 2 log methods can lead to abuse aimed at the person making the log. And not just by the cache owner! The second can generate abuse at the Reviewers.

 

At least with the icache list, the cache owner has a chance to be made aware that there is a issue in a non confrontational manner, as it is just a statistics list, their cache being on that list due to their own inaction.

 

Personally to me, anyone trying to hide a Long Term Disabled Cache. Which did not have a justifiable reason, would be reason for me to immediately action the cache, even if there was 5-600 caches Disabled even longer than that cache. As it would show, that rather than Maintaining the cache as required by the Guidelines. The owner is trying to avoid Maintaining it.

 

Deci

[+Moote]

 

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!

 

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.

[Neath Worthies]

No I pointed out that someone is on a crusade which is not their business,.

Pot? Kettle?

[Neath Worthies]

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.

All that's listed on Geocaching.com are cache listings. Cache owners ALL hide behind "user id's". REAL personal data are kept hidden by Groundspeak. Get off your latest hobby horse and go and find some caches.

[+mtn-man]

So you can tell the full name and address of a cache hider from their listing? I don't see any personal information given. Pretty much everyone hides behind nicknames, and the few that do use their real names do not provide any personal information on the web site that I have ever seen.

 

When you post a cache to the internet, that data is then public, not personal. If someone wants to create a list using this data that is readily available to the public, there is nothing stopping that. I see no slander, only a statement of facts gathered from that public data.

 

I don't think the list is probably a nice thing to do, but it seems perfectly legal based on the act you site.

[+Moote]

So you can tell the full name and address of a cache hider from their listing? I don't see any personal information given. Pretty much everyone hides behind nicknames, and the few that do use their real names do not provide any personal information on the web site that I have ever seen.

 

When you post a cache to the internet, that data is then public, not personal. If someone wants to create a list using this data that is readily available to the public, there is nothing stopping that. I see no slander, only a statement of facts gathered from that public data.

 

I don't think the list is probably a nice thing to do, but it seems perfectly legal based on the act you site.

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

[+mtn-man]

Then, by your "logic", the entire internet would be against the law in the UK since someone somewhere can possibly identify anyone via anything published online and so viewing anything on the internet is against the law. I am sure we can count on you to be the first in line at the police station to turn yourself in? After all, you have viewed my posts in this topic, replied to it, and I am offended that you have read my posts. Someone somewhere knows me that is on the internet, so I would like for you to be arrested for viewing my post.

 

Let me know when you are heading to the police station, will ya'?

[norsch]

So you can tell the full name and address of a cache hider from their listing? I don't see any personal information given. Pretty much everyone hides behind nicknames, and the few that do use their real names do not provide any personal information on the web site that I have ever seen.

 

When you post a cache to the internet, that data is then public, not personal. If someone wants to create a list using this data that is readily available to the public, there is nothing stopping that. I see no slander, only a statement of facts gathered from that public data.

 

I don't think the list is probably a nice thing to do, but it seems perfectly legal based on the act you site.

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"

[+Smurf]

So you can tell the full name and address of a cache hider from their listing? I don't see any personal information given. Pretty much everyone hides behind nicknames, and the few that do use their real names do not provide any personal information on the web site that I have ever seen.

 

When you post a cache to the internet, that data is then public, not personal. If someone wants to create a list using this data that is readily available to the public, there is nothing stopping that. I see no slander, only a statement of facts gathered from that public data.

 

I don't think the list is probably a nice thing to do, but it seems perfectly legal based on the act you site.

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

 

 

So far as I can see all the data bases on iCache only provide a link to Groundspeak web pages.

I see no "passing on" of data, only links to stuff that is already in the public domain.

 

If this is going to be the case with the "new" data base of archived caches, your argument doesn't hold up

[+LondonCacher]

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

 

God knows I should be smarter than to step into a flame war, but I really have to chime in on this.

 

The DPA is horrendously complicated. Understanding what is "personal information" and what counts as a "disclosure of personal information" is extraordinarily difficult, especially when it comes to partial or pseudo-anonymised data and electronic information such as internet nicknames. To suggest that you can solve it "done and dusted" in a few sentences on a webforum is simply inaccurate.

 

Having spent two years studying and practising DPA law, I can confidently say that I have absolutely no idea whether a tribunal would hold that internet nicknames in this context would be considered "personal data". I am of the personal (and wholly unresearched, unsupported and informal) opinion that it is not personal data if considered it in the context of Recital 26.

 

I stand here not to support one side or the other, but to say this: I know nothing about neurobiology. I will never debate whether a lobotomy is likely to be successful. If you know nothing about law, please show the same respect.

[+Moote]

So you can tell the full name and address of a cache hider from their listing? I don't see any personal information given. Pretty much everyone hides behind nicknames, and the few that do use their real names do not provide any personal information on the web site that I have ever seen.

 

When you post a cache to the internet, that data is then public, not personal. If someone wants to create a list using this data that is readily available to the public, there is nothing stopping that. I see no slander, only a statement of facts gathered from that public data.

 

I don't think the list is probably a nice thing to do, but it seems perfectly legal based on the act you site.

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,

[+Moote]

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'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:

6. License to Use Submissions

 

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, "Submissions") remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

(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.

[markandlynn]

I am very annoyed at the cache police and a certain reviewer at the moment so much so that I am going to demand a refund on my newly renewed premium membership.

 

get a life and give people with a life a chance to do something

 

Sorry to hear that one of your favourite caches (thats a guess but i assume thats why you were watching it) has been archived. Its always sad when it happens no matter what the reason

 

Ive added a few of my favourites to my watchlist so that if a reviewer note appears i may be able to step in with community maintainance to save them or at least ask for a stay of execution pending a request for adoption etc.

[+mtn-man]

I'm sorry Moote, but I did not give you permission to quote my posts. You have stolen my personal data that I have posted on the internet. I would like you turn yourself in for unauthorized use of my personal opinions that I have posted on the internet.

 

After all, you should be fully prepared to practice what you preach.

[+Moote]

I'm sorry Moote, but I did not give you permission to quote my posts. You have stolen my personal data that I have posted on the internet. I would like you turn yourself in for unauthorized use of my personal opinions that I have posted on the internet.

 

After all, you should be fully prepared to practice what you preach.

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.

[+mtn-man]

Please point to that for me. There is nothing there about you quoting my personal information.

[+Moote]

Please point to that for me. There is nothing there about you quoting my personal information.

 

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.

[Neath Worthies]

mtn-man, do not rise to the bait any more. Moote has a long and "distinguished" history of stirring arguments in this forum. You only have to do a search to see that. Trying to argue logically with him is like trying to push custard up a hill.

[+pklong]

Not another thread that ends up a bit like this:

 

 

I tire of these forums.

[+Moote]

mtn-man, do not rise to the bait any more. Moote has a long and "distinguished" history of stirring arguments in this forum. You only have to do a search to see that. Trying to argue logically with him is like trying to push custard up a hill.

 

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.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Moote

[+pklong]

Thread's over. Let's have it closed.

[+mtn-man]

The topic was removed by Groundspeak, but I will place it back again. It is still going to be closed for further comment though.