I'm only approaching this from kind of a thought experiment kind of view Dave, as much interested in if law agrees with common sense as any other aspect, not on one side or the other.

Looked at your link but it's only 'definitions', might expect the devil to be in details outside of definitions but would agree that in definitions alone it seems a person can be identified not only by name but also by other specifics such as address (? question to all).

Then I looked briefly beyond definitions... In 'principles relating to processing of personal data' 5.1 I don't see anything hotpsots do to contravene legislation... What points do you reckon contravene it?

Kind of broke my own rules by reading into stuff like that and haven't read much further... I reckon if something flies in the face of common sense it's open to being challenged anyway and most people would agree with common sense... so I generally wouldn't bother reading stuff like that when there might something in later points x and y that are exceptions to points a b c. Can't be an expert in law without lots of study but can be very good at common sense which usually prevails and even if it fails everyone with common sense is on side.

You might be going against common sense on this one... An ISP that potentially shares some of your bandwidth with it's other customers, on the flip side so you can share some of their other customers bandwidth when you're away from home, seems a good idea. You don't know who's FON you're using, just that you're using a FON and you know where the FONs are. There's little to read into the ISP saying use of hotspots for their customers is free, the facility is at no added cost in the terms of the contract and if you opted out of that part of the contract (so maybe wouldn't allow others to use a hotspot at your location) there's nothing to say you should pay a lower price. Why should this be illegal? If you don't like the arrangement don't go with the ISP that provides this service...

To me it seems 'livingmap' refers only to the potential for mobile phones and apps to identify the user... i.e. identify a person.

Not sure why you linked to the Strava site, what happens when we zoom in? For sure if a device location was tracked the movement pattern could be used to identify a person (with further effort) but houses with hotspots don't move.

Others here have said that the legislation (GDPR) applies only to the identification of people and so far I don't think you've shown anything that proves this wrong, in fact everything you've said points to the identification of people being the problem (as opposed to pointing to an address being a problem)? However it has occurred to me that it would be possible to identify owners of locations with hotspots (not accurately where many properties are close together but with increasing accuracy when properties are further apart...) by cross referencing hotspot location with land registry records.. at a price (£3 for a name from the UK.gov site). Dunno if that would be illegal in some circumstances but if I were a lazy private investigator who wanted to know who owned a property with a hotspot in a very rural location that's probably how I'd start. To any firm etc wanting to do this en-mass for marketing purposes the costs would probably be prohibitive and the land registry might start to ask questions.

If we put all the above together we're left with... It could be possible to identify the owner of a property who has a hotspot, but no more possible than it would be to identify the owner of any none hotspot property. What can we say is unique to the owner of a property with a hotspot.... considering a high proportion of properties have broadband and the limited difference between having broadband and having broadband that features a hotspot. After all, you didn't previously realise the difference between broadband and broadband with a hotspot so why would others be seeked out because they have a hotspot? The last sentence could take argument in any direction eh!

I looked at post #68... Perhaps if the man in the van was using 4g for internet access he wouldn't have been blocking your drive... but maybe he would. If this went to court there could be an ironic situation in which you claim he was using your FON, he says he was on 4g, you need BT to prove (from their records, if possible) that he was using your FON... Would you (and BT) need to be in breach of GDPR to prove that van man was using your FON? lol.

Laughing aside, if a daft lad or man in a van attacked you with a blade he used for cutting bacca and cleaning out his pipe, so you pulled out a 12 bore and fired at him you could take 90 people's eyes out using the shotgun when you could probably have run away. Millions of BT hotspot users seem to like the service, you could get around all your problems by using a different ISP but you chose to go with the shotgun scenario and blame van man's presence on a service you chose to sign up to.. though you claim not to have realised all the implications of signing up to that service even though you are capable of understanding all this about GDPR. Isn't the real case that you were offended by the van man parking outside your drive on a public road on which you are un-accustomed to strangers parking but have chosen to blame this on BT?

You live out in the sticks, strangers turned up to use your hotspot and this negatively affected your ill neighbour...
Not that it'd necessarily be relevant but I'd be curious to know more detail, e.g. did groups of pot smoking youths turn up in in cars etc? Genuine question, I'm not trying to make light of your or the ill neighbour's experiences.

I don't know anything about GDPR and wouldn't expect to become an expert by reading a few links today.

Seems you're implying a point that there's a difference between, say...
1 - someone picks addresses at random and lists them on a website made just for the purpose of listing the random addresses and calls the website 'some one time randomly generated UK addresses' or 'examples of UK addresses'.
2 - The Ferrari analogy again where some Ferrari dealer lists addresses of customers who have recently bought a new Ferrari.. though it probably wouldn't make much difference if Ferrari called this list 'valued prior customers' or 'list of people who recently bought a new one'.

Seems intuitive but again I'm not an expert. To me, the difference in 1 and 2 is that 1 is just a list of addresses with no context, can't see how that could be of much use to anyone with good or bad intentions, 2 could be put to use by thieves who want to nick a Ferrari or by sales people who knock on doors trying to sell conservatories.

But then when you say 'BT BB WiFi/HotSpot Customers might be similarly unwittingly inconvenienced / harassed etc' I'm not sure if it would make for an all round better situation if customers had to opt in. There will be some people who signed up to the service because they want(ed) / need(ed) to make use of hotspots, plenty other customers who aren't fussed about sharing a small amount of their bandwidth occasionally so others can use hotspots but probably wouldn't bother to opt in if opting in meant having to lift a finger (and similarly wouldn't bother to opt back in if they got a letter saying they'd been automatically opted out but could opt back in again). The likely result of people having to opt in would be that the number of hotspots would become so small as to render hotspots a totally unreliable means of accessing the internet... Maybe not so bad these days with 3g/4g but a few years ago if you'd managed to force BT into making opted out the default instead of opted in I dunno if that would have made you more popular or less popular... If I had to guess I'd say most likely overall less popular.

I just Googled 'BT hotspot', the top search result reads...
Sign up for BT Broadband and get free access to over 5m hotspots across the UK! +5 Million Wi-fi Hotspots. 18 Month Contracts. Unlimited Broadband. Types: Broadband, Fibre Optic, Unlimited, BT Plus.

I wonder if BT would argue that one of the reasons people sign up is to enable themselves to use hotspots and they need to know where hotspots are to use them. By signing up you knew you'd be able to use listed hotspots but also knew your address would become a listed hotspot... Isn't it fairly obvious that by default with such a service your address would be a hotspot and listed? If you never liked the way that works you could have gone with a a different ISP.. You could still switch to a different ISP, why are we in court when plenty other customers appreciate the trade-off.

Isn't that a case of

davew wrote:

‘material’ for them to do the job you paid them for:

?

Not taking sides, I dunno much about it but this is interesting. From what's been said above, would a court case go like this...
Judge: Addresses are not personal data. On what grounds do you think you have a case against BT?
You: There have been groups of kids hanging around my remote house to use the hotspot, they may not have known about the hotspot if BT hadn't published the info.
Judge: Our expert witness here says you could easily prevent the kids gathering by using a different inexpensive router, while this court case will cost £X.

On the addresses are not personal data thing though.. Is it legal for a firm to list all it's customers addresses on the internet? I suppose if Ferrari listed it's customer addresses on the internet that would be inviting trouble for it's customers...

RutlandRover wrote:

There's a surprising lack of people that will touch automatic gearboxes.

That's true here in the UK, seems in the US there are lots of auto transmission specialists who will rebuild them etc. I used to have lots of problems with auto boxes on Chrysler people carriers, bought replacements from scrapyards but did consider rebuilding the box myself with stronger parts... very fiddly time consuming work and to exact tolerances though. Not sure I'd prefer a recon box over one from a scrapyard, some firms 'recon' boxes might just have had the bit that broke changed so hardly better than one from a scrapyard anyway, price and warranty might swing it either way for me.

If the public hotspots are explained in their terms and conditions are you not opting in by buying their service?

Use BT with a different router that doesn't feature a public hotspot?

Interested to read the effects people have noted regards decats. Lots of owners of the many Nissans I've been converting have decatted, I've done the decat for many of them and will be decatting my own Nissan's exhaust (ref my 'dead engine on holiday in Cornwall' thread). Got to wonder what dynamics are at play that causes worse performance/mpg after decat, I don't think anyone on the Nissan forum has noticed the same. Widening and narrowing of the exhaust section close to the manifold / heat loss / loss of exhaust pulse scavenging, probably never know but surprised to read of performance/mpg increases when cats have been put back in. Maybe when I decat my own Nissan I'll weld a pipe inside having read this, there are 4 cats on it though.

He was a young lad with a shiny new Snap On scan tool, I have to wonder if he'd rather just plug that in and charge for some 'report' than do much dirty hands on work.

I don't think I've worked on brakes where wear sensors are separate from brake pads but don't doubt they exist.
He reckoned his supposed twisting wires together probably didn't work (to turn off the warning light) because the sensor has a built in resistor. Shrugged and said he was going when I suggested that in that case he could prevent the warning light by wiring in a resistor. Probably sees his scan tool and writing diagnostic reports as easier than actually changing brake pads.. but to be fair I reckon his report will have been accurate even if an unnecessary expense for the owner. The owner reckoned the brakes were binding but they didn't seem to be binding when I drove it and the wheel(s) etc didn't get warm... mind you I noticed the osr tyre was a bit deflated so I blew it up ;-)

Just LPG converted an L322 with BMW motor (well, finished it on Wednesday but the owner isn't collecting til tomorrow).
The owner had a mobile mechanic come to look at it today (Fri) because his brake warning lights are on. He's just had new brake pads fitted, the warning lights came on straight after that. I had to pop out for half an hour whilst the mobile mechanic was here (step daughter in labour so some running people around to do), when I got back the mobile bloke reckoned the fault was just that the new pads didn't have the necessary brake light warning connection on osr and possibly also on the nsf. He reckoned he'd tried twisting the wires together but that didn't prevent the warning light (but I'm not sure he did anything to get dirty as he looked immaculate when he arrived and looked immaculate when I came back). Anyway.. He used a tablet style Snap-On code reader to see the fault codes and could get into most modules with it. He advised the owner to take it back to the people who fitted the brake pads. Not sure why the owner even hired him tbh.

Should be the one, even if not it will fit anyway.

Or you could just ask me Dave... considering I converted it and have a copy of the invoice lol ;-)

Vapour filter https://www.lpgshop.co.uk/lpg-filter-y-inlet-1x12mm-outlet-2x12mm/

But I didn't specify which (exact) Valtek Liquid filter I fitted on the invoice... and I occasionally (rarely though) list Valtek filter solenoids on invoices when I've really fitted an OMB filter solenoid or similar. On the shiny cap bit of the filter solenoid it should say what type it is.. (a number after Valtek like 07). Probably this one https://www.lpgshop.co.uk/valtek-zavoli-emma-gas-lpg-filter-paper/

Just change the filters and leak check as Gilbert said. If cars come here for service I'll do a bit more like checking fuel trims, compare trims on different banks, connect to the LPG ECU with the laptop and check pressure etc... But that won't be necessary at all, wouldn't expect to find any issues if I converted it lol ;-) Usually when I get cars in for service converted elsewhere there's loads to do with calibration etc.

Simon

On the subject of parallel versus serial reducer plumbing I think which route is best comes down to the model of car and model of reducer. Some cars heater circuit designs dictate a certain routing.. some with water control solenoids would have no or severely limited water flow with the heater turned off/down, some with electric pumps in the heater circuit (and/or various shunting valves etc) would see most water flow go through the matrix instead of the reducer especially at low rpm (when the pump kicks in). Two aspects of water flow, volume and pressure - Could have a heater circuit with high pressure where pressure decreases dramatically as flow rate increases in which case series routing might be best, or could have low pressure but capable of retaining that pressure at high flow rates in which case parallel routing would be the best. Both the reducer and the matrix will give some resistance to water flow - with average pressure and volume capabilities there probably isn't much difference between volume and series routing, in terms of advantages for one way or the other what you gain on the roundabouts you lose on the swings. If the river Ouse flowed hot water and I wanted to use it's flow to heat multiple small items where each item had limited internal flow I'd stick them side by side in the river (use parallel routing) / If I wanted to heat the same two small items using a tiny little jet of hot water leaking at high pressure from a boiler I'd probably go with series routing. Some cars and reducer positioning can make airlocks more of a potential issue with one way of routing over the other, usually series routing would be most likely to prevent airlocks but it can go the other way. Different model reducers have different water flow properties, wouldn't want to use series routing with (say) a Bigas reducer that uses 10mm pipe when usually the matrix is fed with 19mm pipe. Reducers and matrixes can furr up reducing flow, with series routing if one gets blogged it reduces flow to both... I've 'fixed' a few factory fitted Vectras plumbed in series where besides the LPG system not working the heater also didn't work.. because the matrix was blogged - by re-plumbing in parallel (at owners request after I'd explained the real cause of the problem and the owner decided he'd fix the matrix later... in summer or the owners might have gone for swapping the heater matrix straight away lol).

Not sure what you mean @Super4 but you can ask LPG questions on this forum or LPGforum if you're a member of LPGforum.
The LPGforum section on this forum was, as Gilbert said, just for the few of us that were rescuing LPGforum at the time. You don't need access to that section of this forum to ask questions about LPG, you could just start a thread in (say) the Oily Bits section.

Morat wrote:

Does anyone else see ACME filler and have to go Meep Meep?

Just me then?

I'll get my coat...

Me too... and half the Yanks I've sold DIY kits to have said beep beep.

That square cap will fit yours Dave.
It's only £4.40 if you buy from LPGShop's website rather than from LPGShop's Ebay listing.
You can use the screw in adaptors for other countries - The brass part of your filler is exactly the same as brass parts used in 70mm round housings.
https://www.lpgshop.co.uk/uk-bayonet-w21-8-to-all-europe-adapters-set/ You could combine postage..

Hehe.. It is a load of bolx though the way they talk etc eh? Can imagine there was once a time when that sort of language was more the norm, in which case why hasn't the language moved with the times?

I was once done for having no insurance on my son's Corsa when I was teaching him to drive. Had just dropped my daughter off in his Corsa, I was driving with my son in front passenger seat. I didn't have my docs on me but told the copper I had a trade policy that also covered me to drive any vehicle tptf. The copper didn't believe my policy would cover me if I wasn't driving for business purposes so I got a letter, could either accept 6 points and a fine or go to court. I knew I was covered, checked my docs, replied to the letter saying I was covered and included a copy of the policy but they stuck to their guns... accept the points or argue the toss in court. I chose to go to court (Leeds magistrates), they kept me there all day before I went into the actual courtroom... and then I was suddenly discharged without trial. At that point I was disappointed not to have been tried, I was fired up and looking forward to it! But I think I know why I was discharged... I recognised the prosecution barrister, couldn't place him at first, then I remembered where I knew him from.. He was a customer who I'd converted a BMW740 for! Quite a coincidence. But there was another coincidence with the same bloke... Before I converted his BMW I once saw him launching his boat at Acaster Marine when I was launching my boat, we didn't speak at all on that occasion but I knew his face when he brought his BMW to me and then when I dropped his car off for him at his house I saw his boat outside.. He was launching his boat with his 740 the first time I saw him when we didn't speak. I have to wonder whether they discharged me without trial because they realised they were wrong (I showed a copper or a court clerk my docs), or because the prosecution barrister knew me, or because the prosecution barrister had allowed me to drive his car without checking my insurance situation lol...

Impressive thread.. Gordon could set up a link from the home page and name it 'Why you should want to be a member of this forum'.

What I was getting at was that it'd probably run much better when first cold started because of the excess fuel factor (choke effect) which on most engines provides a far richer mixture than would be necessary... the excess is usually in excess.