Dennis Howlett and Thomas Otter recently made serious accusations against Robert Scoble, explicitly stating that he has broken European Union law. They both use very strong language, no if, maybes, buts about it. Both have responded to my article. Unfortunately, to my frustration they continue to level these accusations without clear arguments and focus — arguments relying on quotes without legal context, colorful prose, but no reference of legal precedent. How such polarized positions and accusations suit their own interests is plain, but both have unmet responsibility to clearly present such serious accusations.
Serious Accusation, Scoble Shot The Sheriff
This entry was posted in Opinion and tagged AccusationDennis HowlettEuropean UnionEuropean Union LawFacebooklawlegalprivacyresponsibilityRobert ScobleThomas Otter. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Lloyd.
Please see my comment 67 for my response to the many comments on my post.
Also see comment 70 for the response of a UK based legal Academic.
I cant be any clearer than that, and I’m sorry you dont like my prose style.
Feel free to drop me a note about where I’m unclear. In 67 I also cover my legal background, so at the risk of being arrogant, I do know a bit about this topic.
I don’t really understand your allegation on my own interests.
Regards
Thomas
I’m still confused. How does EU law pertain to an American? I can break any state law specific to somewhere like Alaska, but since I live in Michigan, breaking an Alaskan law (provided there is no similar law in Michigan) has no repercussions. Am I missing something?
Hi Thomas, It isn’t a matter of whether I like your prose style. It is inappropriate for such a serious accusation. Suggesting someone follow the tangle of the article let alone the comments should be embarassing. Live up to the responsible of such a serious accusation, and write a piece with clear arguments, focus, and reference including to legal precedent.
Thomas has outlined the position which I have repeated and expanded upon. In the various comments made it is clear there is an issue under law. He has acknowledged the law needs work. The fact the Dataportability group has invited Thomas – who is a soon to be minted Gartner analyst – to the table speaks volumes. They clearly believe there is an issue or they would have chosen to ignore him. I know Thomas personally and he is a person of significant intellect and integrity. That is why I picked up on what he had to day. There is no requirement for him to show precedent because such law as he referred to is written in plain English and readily understood. Rather than continue what is becoming a circular argument, why not wait and see what the outcome of the work being undertaken by the Data Portabilitygroup? Then we’ll all know. In the meantime, speaking personally, I stand by what I said precisely because of the crispness of Thomas’s argument and my own experience in this field.
Dennis, strong arguments stand on their own, and do not need you appealing to his associates.
Outlined? Repeated? Expanded upon? You both are mixing issues like a witch’s brew.
Crispness of argument? First, that would require a crispness of accusation.
Wait and see? The DataPortability very foundation is participation in the conversation. I don’t imagine Thomas’ valuable contribution will be focused on whether or not Scoble broke the law, but what his expertise really seems to be, how services can treat personal data appropriately.
I completely agree that Thomas and you are discussing important issues, but you should have left your accusation out of it, or tempered it with appropriate doubts, and that is where you fail in your responsibility of leveling such a serious accusation.