DPC ruling on Mulley V Thinkhouse PR
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my site using a feedreader or email. Thanks for visiting - Damien.
With the permission of the DPC. I’ll let you be the judge.
Brief Description : Conclusion of complaint against Thinkhouse PR
Comments :Dear Mr Mulley,
I refer to your recent complaint to this Office concerning the receipt of
unsolicited commercial communications from Thinkhouse PR,, and wish to
inform you that investigations by this office are now finalisedThe matter under investigation involved a possible contravention of
Regulation 13(3) of Statutory Instrument 535 of 2003 European Communities
(Electronic Communications Networks and Services ) (Data Protection and
Privacy) Regulations 2003 as follows :13(3)” A person shall not use, or cause to be used, any publicly available
electronic communications services to send an unsolicited communication for
the purpose of direct marketing by means of electronic mail, to a
subscriber, other than an individual, where the subscriber has notified the
person that the subscriber does not consent to the receipt of such a
communication on the line ”As part of the investigation, this Office contacted Thinkhouse PR who
advised that info@irelandoffline.org was added to their technology media
press list, as a result of a telephone conversation Ms Jane McDaid,
Managing Director, Thinkhouse PR had with Mr John Timmons, Vice Chairman
Irelandoffline.org. We have been informed that during this telephone call
Ms McDaid informed Mr Timmons that his number had been given to her by
ImagineBroadband for the purposes of contacting him regarding a forthcoming
news conference concerning a special offer being introduced by
ImagineBroadband. We have been advised that Mr Timmons consented to
receiving the press release concerning ImagineBroadband.It is the view of this Office that although info@irelandoffline.org
consented to receiving Emails concerning a specific press release from
ImagineBroadband, this consent cannot reasonably be interpreted as a
general consent permitting Thinkhouse PR to send communications concerning
unrelated products or services.Thinkhouse PR have further advised us that when irelandoffline.org
contacted them to request removal from the database, steps were taken to
record this preference. The request took 2 days to process owing to the
business absence of the staff member who updates the press lists.Following the intervention by this Office Thinkhouse PR have advised us
that ” we have had a meeting with all staff regarding the importance of
our procedures in relation to contact lists and press releases. All people
who are currently on our press lists are people who have consented to be on
our lists. Where people request to be taken off, which rarely happens,
they are taken off as quickly as humanly possible in the natural course of
business ( in this case 2 days)”In concluding the investigation into the matters raised by you, this Office
is prepared to accept the explanation given by Thinkhouse in this instance,
and is satisfied that they are now aware of their obligations under Data
Protection legislation.The Commissioner wishes to thank you for bringing this matter to his
attention.Yours sincerely
Update: In regards to the “apology” the DPC was alleged to have made, I asked them about it and pointed to where someone said they apologised. The DPC stated:
In response to your email sent to XXX , let me first say that there is no question of us having apologised to Thinkhouse PR.The matter has now being clarified on the blog.
Digg it! |
Reddit |
Del.icio.us |
Stumble Upon |
Google
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
[...] Later.. Damien posted the letter he received from the Commissioner. They did investigate, but I think someone in Thinkhouse PR needs to come up with another reason. They stated that it took up to 2 days to remove a user from their lists. Unfortunately for them Damien received his last spam correspondence from them 14 days or more after contacting them. Someone should get a slap on the wrist for this. [...]
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
[...] Update from Damo with a “ah shur they didn’t realise it was spam the poor wee clueless darlings, would ye ever leave them alone” response from the DPC. Another Comreg on our hands? [...]
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Pussies.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Is it just me, or has the DPC become Just Another ComReg since Joe Meade left and Billy Hawkes came along?
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:11 pm
They said the same to me when I complained about Tesco failing to supply the details of the data held by them on me. “The office is prepared to accept the explanation …” yadda yadda yadda.
Toothless, incompetent, wusses totally unprepared to stand up against those who will violate the law.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Actually here is a link to the relevant letter:
http://despod.blogspot.com/2006/01/data-protection-officers-response.html
“This Office contacted the Data Compliance Manager in Tesco during the > investigation of your complaint. They were reminded of their obligations > under the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 at this stage. We are of the > oppinion that they are aware of their obligations and that “human error” > was the reason for the delay in the response to your original email to > them > in October 2005. > > This Office will not be taking any further action on this matter. > > I trust that this clarifies the situation for you. “
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
[...] First, Damien posted the DPC ruling. Which is in a ’silly children, but they know not to do it now that kindly Uncle DPC has had a chat’ theme. Hmm. [...]
October 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am
[...] Update 1: Blurred Keys has a good list of the blogs that copied Damien’s post. Update 2: The poor soul from Thinkhouse sent out to defend the company (complete with SLoppy TYpng and spElling, hardly inspiring confidence in PR skills?) said the following in comments (at Eirepreneur regarding the DPC (which is rechristened as the yet-unknown Data Protection Agency) : 22.10.2006 - They also apologied for having to follow the complaint up”. 23.10.2006 - “I would like to clarify a point. The Data Protection Commissioner’s Office, in response to a complaint made to it about Thinkhouse, did not apologise for having to follow the complaint up.” Update 3: Damien gets a response from the DPC. Not a great result, but useful nonetheless. [...]
October 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Data Protection Commissioner response to SPAM complaint
Damien has published the full response from the Data Protection Commissioner on his site with their permission.
14/08/2006 – Ben and Jerry ice-cream Spam
Thinkhouse PR notified
18/08/2006 - 3 Mobile Phone SPAM
22/08/2006 – Moviestar.ie SPAM
…
October 25th, 2006 at 10:44 am
[...] Originally Posted by Rollo This was written on the infactah blog on Monday… Spamming in Ireland carries no penalties says Data Protection Commissioner - In Fact, Ah You may have missed out on the other posts: Damien Mulley » Blog Archive » DPC ruling on Mulley V Thinkhouse PR Damien Mulley » Blog Archive » How odd - my Thinkhouse PR blog post is banned from Google Data Protection Commissioner apologises for “having to” investigate complaint? » at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views __________________ Armchair.ie | work|Blog Tips|Seo tips|EU Domain ScandalTechie Toys| Gadgets [...]
November 29th, 2006 at 10:44 am
[...] The following is taken from a press release from Movistar.ie’s Public Relations firm Thinkhouse PR: “Best Website Launched in 2006! We are absolutely thrilled,” said Gavin McConnon of moviestar.ie. “We spent a lot of time researching and trialling the website ensuring that it was designed in a browser-friendly way.” [...]