Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: Hippocrates on September 20, 2025, 11:08:56 am
-
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr James Bond to have foresight enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record this supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Bond has viewed no such issue on this PCN and has made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN website on this PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against this PCN.
-
I suppose if anything is going to be misconfigured, it's a council website.
-
Interestingly though, this largely will depend on the infrastructure their website (or PCN "portal") is hosted on.
For instance, when the old PPP domain was going to expire, I had built a "reverse proxy" site so that it could still be accessed. The very nature of this meant that the PPP forum software only saw my reverse proxy's address and not the end users (this was never needed as they renewed the domain then killed the forum... oh well)
If the portal is hosted behind a reverse proxy, and that reverse proxy or the portal software is misconfigured, then the portal may never see any other IP addresses other than it's own infrastructure, hence the "You've not looked at it".
Not to mention that most mobile data comes out on a limited range of IP addresses (ever had the "You've already viewed 3 articles today" on newspaper sites on mobile data?).
In the short term, I guess that it is prudent that you print to pdf a copy of the portal site so you can contradict their statements in future?
-
With my Computing lecturer hat on, I see no cause for concern. An IP address does not identify an individual (both factually and legally, according to case law from file sharing cases). Unless you've specifically paid for a fixed one and never use a mobile device or a different wifi network, they can change arbitrarily.
Although you are of course correct that an IP address doesn't identify an individual, on its own, it is regarded as an "online identifier" under GDPR, and "online identifiers" do legally constitute personal data.
An IP address, combined with other information, can after all be used to distinguish one person from another, and thus to identify an individual.
After all, if you think about it, a name doesn't identify an individual. There are thousands of John Smiths, to take the usual example. But combine the name with an address, or a telephone number, or height, or birthdate, and you can tell one from John Smith from another and thus identify an individual.
The point being that "personal data" isn't necessarily data that identifies a person on its own.
-
Although the points made about IP address "collection" being both technically unavoidable and incapable of identifying an individual are valid, isn't it nevertheless blindingly obvious that there are circumstances where information about IP addresses which have accessed a website could still provide an organisation with evidence about whether or not a particular individual has accessed it?
After all, if nobody at all has accessed the website, that would logically prove that no specific individual has accessed it.
Alternatively, if the only people to access the website are people from within the organisation's own IP range, that would show that no individual outside the organisation has accessed it.
-
Again with my Computing lecturer hat on, paranoia and a desire to learn through asking questions are highly desirable traits in a cybersecurity student, so I felt the need to balance out the likes on Hippocrates original question.
This stuff isn't obvious or simple, so I am happy to deliver as much of a lecture on TCP/IP as the regulars would like in order to help them argue points in front of adjudicators from a position of knowledge.
-
I am taking the point that, if a council makes a statement that I have not visited their website re a particular case, this should surely be challenged when I have.
Was their stated reasoning for this based solely on IP addresses?
If so, that would seem to be a rather flawed use of IP address logs, regardless of any broader views as to their storage of the same in the first place.
Yet to be divulged via a formal complaint. They bluntly stated in their evidence pack that I had not accessed their website to view the case when I had.
-
OK, if you want a reply then I will reply.
What I don't like about your post is your level of paranoia. As Grant Urismo and DWMB2 have already, it's standard practice for virtually all websites - probably even this one.
I am not paranoid. Rather, pragmatic. Cada loco con su tema.
-
Surely just by recording your IP address doesn't mean you were the person accessing it. Much like because you're the RK of a car doesn't mean you were driving it.
-
I am taking the point that, if a council makes a statement that I have not visited their website re a particular case, this should surely be challenged when I have.
Was their stated reasoning for this based solely on IP addresses?
If so, that would seem to be a rather flawed use of IP address logs, regardless of any broader views as to their storage of the same in the first place.
-
OK, if you want a reply then I will reply.
What I don't like about your post is your level of paranoia. As Grant Urismo and DWMB2 have already, it's standard practice for virtually all websites - probably even this one.
-
@Stedman What is it you dislike about my initial post? I am taking the point that, if a council makes a statement that I have not visited their website re a particular case, this should surely be challenged when I have.
Please post a reply.
-
There is literally no way for a website to send you a page without temporarily storing your IP address, so it's actually just a question of how long that information is retained.
-
You'd probably go a long way to find a website around that doesn't record one's IP address these days.
-
With my Computing lecturer hat on, I see no cause for concern. An IP address does not identify an individual (both factually and legally, according to case law from file sharing cases). Unless you've specifically paid for a fixed one and never use a mobile device or a different wifi network, they can change arbitrarily.
-
This concerns me. And I suggest that all recipients of PCNs note this when they do so. And make a FOIR. One council (Lewisham) has even alleged that I had not viewed a client's case at all on its website.