Dave,
I don't work for BT, but I am qualified in Data Protection law.
From your Fitzpatrick link I see nothing that supports your theory and nothing that contradicts mine, indeed - from your link:

<quote> Anonymous Data: One thing about GDPR personal data is clear. Article 26 states anonymous data is not subject to the requirements of the law. </quote>

You need to look at your posts and strip them back to only the points that can be argued from the GDPR/DPA 2018.
I'm sorry, this was fun but now I'm bowing out. If you want to take BT to court it's your choice. My final piece of free legal advice is that you should think very carefully before entering into a short but expensive campaign against a company with limitless resources. Especially when you're wrong.

All true, but a property address is not personal data.

Hi Pete and welcome :)
I'm about an hour south of you down the A19 - and jealous of your Holland and Holland!
Best of luck!

I'm hoping to get all four wheels in the air, undo the worst propshaft and take it way to smack the UJs out with a socket and hammer once I've removed the circlips.
I've only bought two UJs so far but I've begged 10 minutes on the 4 post lift at work this lunchtime so I can have a look see. I need to do more than two I'll order some UJs this afternoon. Sadly LRDirect have been very slow shipping my stuff but I should be able to next day another set from somewhere if required.

So far I have assembled
JAckstands x4 (2x2ton 2x6 ton)
Metric/Imperial socket set with extensions etc
Set of Circlip Pliers
Grease
Paint Marker
Blue Locktite
Hammer :)

I need to borrow my neighbours Jack.
The UJs nuts and bolts are still on the way - due for delivery today.
Lets hope it stops pissing down!

That's a funky looking thing but is it much better than a 3/8th socket and an extension? £11 is a lot of brass in Yorkshire 😀

I've just been informed that her Ladyship is away 23/24th so I'm out for both the last two weeks in March. Bogus. Any chance of April 6th/7th?

BrianH wrote:

Its not particularly difficult to get the propshaft off providing you have tools to fit the bolts ok, and once its off you can work on replacing the joints without being under the car, so it shouldn't take you too long with any luck.

Brian is there anything special required for the propshaft bolts beyond a socket and breaker bar?

I'm going with just UJs, and I've bought one of those paint marker pens so I can mark up the prop to keep it in the original alignment. I'm hoping that I'll get them sorted and the thing back on its wheels in one weekend :)

23/24 works for me, 30/31 doesn't
Glad you're busy - are you in a reachable timezone?

Just had a thought. If BT wanted to automate the mapping procedure AND make it GDPR tight they'd just use a BT FON app on the mobile device to connect to BT Fon networks. If this reported hotspot locations back to the BT HQ using all the great data you can get from a phone (GPS, WiFi signal strenght, Connection Speed) then their process would not only be easy and automated but it would be trivial to demonstrate that speedhub locations were nothing to do with Personal Data.

I've never used BT FON but that's how I'd design it if I was King of the World.

I think the crucial word in your understanding of the situation is "our" in "our locations"
As far as I can see they're not revealing YOUR location but the location of "A" speedhub. There's no visible link between the ID of the speedhub and the name of the customer which means that personal data is not being revealed.

Is it being processed? Well that's very hard to determine without knowledge of BT's internal systems, but for PD to be processed in the provision of BT FON there would need to be a link between the ID of the speedhub and the customer. Even then BT could pseudonymise or fully anonymise the data without any great effort. In fact, it's probably far harder to maintain an accurate list of who has what router than it is to simply ship the next box in the pile and be done with it.

How is the location of the speedhubs calculated for the maps I hear you ask? Well it could be simply a list of addresses of customers with speedhubs. There's no need to the customers names to be included in that list. A list of addresses isn't PD unless it's linked to names. (Even a name isn't necessarily PD, especially if it's a common one). It could be phone numbers for which BT are likely to know the locations, but even then a landline isn't going to be personal data.

Of course, even if PD is being used to provide the BT FON service (and this is only suspected and not proven) there are still mechanisms that allow BT to lawfully process that PD without consent. Consent is only one lawful basis for processing PD and BT only need demonstrate that one basis applies for their processing to be legal.

Clearly Vital Interest and Public Interest aren't going to be relevant but Performance of a Contract could easily be (especially if BT undertake to provide the BT FON service in their contract with you) and Legitimate Interest looks likely to me. For Legitimate Interest they just have to say that what they are doing is legal and doesn't infringe on the data protection rights of the subject (and for infringement to apply PD would have to be processed unlawfully during that operation).

So, I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to get BT to change their TnC on any legal basis. Of course if you raise enough public awareness you might get them to concede something - maybe a more public set of controls over BT FON on speedhubs - on a Public Relations basis.

Dave, I've just looked at the BT FON coverage map and it does not contain personal data. As I said, an address is not personal data. The location of a hotspot is not personal data. The data on that map does not identify any living person so it is not personal data and therefore GDPR does not apply.

You may object to BT FON being enabled by default, but nothing in the GDPR will help you mount a legal challenge as it does not apply.

<quote> OK, look at BT's local coverage map (as I suggested) and you can most certainly identify individual house/s (as those kids did to my neighbour, who is ill and needed his sleep etc; Thus BT seriously impinged on his health by their FON OPT IN 'default': That on its own is enough to fall foul of those principles). </quote>

Sorry, that's just wrong. The map identified the location of a hotspot, it didn't reveal the identify of your neighbour therefore GDPR is not relevant. Was it a shitty situation for your neighbour? For sure. Should BT make it clear/easy for customers to disable BT FON if they wish? I would say so. But that doesn't mean you can use GDPR rules on consent to change the situation. GDPR is only relevant in cases of processing personal data and this is not such a case.

davew wrote:

Is your address and the fact that you are a BT Broadband Customer 'personal' information: I would say so !

Your address on its own is not personal data - it does not identify a person, it identifies a house.
The fact that a BT router is in the vicinity is not personal data (even if you can work out which property it is in)

Taken together, your name, your address and the fact that you are a BT Broadband customer would be personal data, but I'm struggling to see how you would link the three together from a BT FON hotspot. That's my main issue with your line of argument.

Dave, just want to point out that I didn't accuse you of talking or thinking bollocks. I'm genuinely interested in what personal data you think is being revealed by BT FON.

I'm also concerned that you're going to cause trouble for yourself if you try to argue the law incorrectly. There are two areas that trouble me:

1. I'm not convinced that BT are processing personal data by providing the BT FON service. The fact that they have your personal data for other purposes doesn't necessarily bring BT FON into the realm of GDPR. The fact that they could look your name/address/email up in one database and link it to a router MAC address in another database doesn't mean that they do. Or that they provide that information to employees. I'm not sure what advantage they would gain from doing that either.

Of course BT FON was introduced before GDPR so there won't be a Data Privacy Impact Assessment on record - but there may be one day if BT ever alter their service which would make this easier to understand. However, you might be able to get some more relevant info from their Privacy Statement.

1. IF there is a link between the two then consent still isn't necessarily required to process your personal data. BT could process your PD using one of six lawful basis. One of which is consent, sure - but that's the least smart move as consent can be withdrawn at any time and that's a massive pain in the arse for any business.

The most likely basis, I'd suggest, is Legitimate Interest which would allow them to process the PD required to provide their services. (As long as it is not excessive, is accurate and subject to the organisation and technical protections required to ensure security)

So, really what I'm saying is that I don't think you can use GDPR as a legal challenge to BT switching on BT FON by default even though I do understand that it's a dick move by BT to do so.

I think you're taking the opt in stuff out of context. These rules only apply to gaining consent to process personal data under GDPR. GDPR only applies to PD. What personal data do you feel is being processed by the BT FON system? (whether pseudonymised or not).

Aragorn wrote:

On the other hand, your original ones have lasted nearly 20 years without grease nipples...

I generally pit the awkwardness of a job, the time it takes, and the possible collateral damage should it fail, against the cost of the parts.

If the only options were £7 for bearmach and £90 for genuine landrover, well i'd be taking the cheap ones.

But the difference between £7 for aftermarket and £12 for the hardy spicer joints is basically nothing. Certainly not worth risking it failing, either catastrophically, or even just getting noisey and having the hassle of another weekend spent bashing at the underside of a P38!

I'm with you. The OEM are actually a couple of quid more than Hardy Spicer in the greasable version and have 2 years vs 1 year warranty. Strangely, the non greasable Hary Spicer are more expensive than the OEM make. I know Spicer are good - the Jeep community fit nothing else but I went with the warranty this time.

You should see the owners manual for an Austin 7 - weekly grease checks!

I did wonder about the extension rod things - they look like a bad idea to me too! I think the Clarke recommended above will be mine next month. If both Sloth and Richard are happy with it, I'll go with it too.

I don't own any level ground but there's a nice concrete pad about 20 yards away that I used for my suspension calibration - just the ticket.
I'll put the 2 ton stands at the end I'm not working on... and wheels under the sills.

Dave - I'm going with a pair of those 6 ton stands. They look great. Thanks!

The OEM (the company not LR) have a 2 year warranty and the rest have a single year.
Bah. I'll be the guinea pig and report back. Hopefully not in 25 months!

I'm going with the grease nipple ones. My thinking is that The Duchess isn't seeing any extreme offroad use so ultimate strength should be less of a factor than wear and tear. Also, my Jeep recently had UJs with grease nipples fitted (the garage just did it) so I'm going to get a grease gun anyway.