Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

They have subsidiaries which apparently do. They are a very secretive billionaire-owned company but it looks like more information will be coming out in the public domain in the next few days.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The requirements on the subsidiaries would have no affect on the parent company so nice try at obfuscation Andrew.

If you want a lesson on parent/umbrella companies you just need to look at the now gone (amalgamated) Grand Metroplitan's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Metropolitan

Makes interesting reading for those who don't know how companies with subsidiaries operate. The parent/umbrella company may own the subsidiary but each one is run as it's own independent concern. Where the profits eventually end up is a different story.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not sure how a potted history lesson from Wikipedia on a specific drinks company that ends in 1997 is relevant to this debate but if sarcasm is your thing then you'll appreciate me thanking you for taking part anyway. ;)
When people talk about say Ford or Cambridge Analytica they generally mean the whole of the company including its subsidiaries.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thank you for showing your ignorance "Grand Metropolitan plc was a leisure, manufacturing and property conglomerate" some drinks company.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thanks for showing a lack of courtesy and respect. They were a brewer (Websters, Watneys Red Barrel). pub owner, spiriits company (Baileys, Gilbeys). They owned different companies throughout their existence but latterly were a drinks company.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

They were never a brewer but bought some breweries.

Wrong again Andrew.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I believe that your reply omits three things imho:
1) Courtesy. Please disagree away but "wrong again" is not courteous. Why the antagonism mate?
2) Accuracy. Brewing was one of their core businesses so it makes them a brewer.
3) The fact that no one ever said they were a brewer from day one.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

4) 2 contradicts 3

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I am not saying that data shouldn't be protected, Andrew, I am saying that the legislation should set out how organisations deal with personal data.

For example, rather than have every organisation having to state that they will only use personal data for the purposes for which it was collected, the legislation itself should say something like:

'Where an organisation collects personal data by consent, it shall not use such data for any purpose that has not been agreed by the subject.'

It really is that simple, and it is a good example of how the EU seems to prefer always to tie everyone up in red tape.

Contrary to what you say, it certainly is a burden for small businesses, particularly when you remember that if you select the wrong category for describing the data usage, you cannot subsequently put it into a more appropriate category as you will be deemed to have breached the regulation. So you have to report yourself immediately you realise and face a huge fine!

This regulation is oppressive and should never have been enacted in its present form.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You need to speak to the Information Commissioner's Office Old Boy. You've either been mislead or you don't understand its approach. It's taking a carrot approach so don't expect fines, it will take places like yours a bit of time before they understand what's required so you won't be taken to the cleaners just yet.
The legislation is all about giving power to the people and encouraging companies to handle data in the way that they would want their own personal data handled.
I can't see an issue with companies having a privacy statement that confirms data will only be used for the purpose for which consent was given. legal good practice wording is to state a positive, not a negative so your wording fails that basic test.
Remember, a company's legitimate interest in processing data overrule's an individual's consent.
What precise circumstances do you mean? Can you provide an example?
But GDPR probably requires a separate thread itself as I'm seeing lots of intelligent people like you bamboozled and led to the nearest cashpoint by consultants and lawyers. ;)

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thank you for making my point for me so explicitely, Andrew!

Sledgehammer. Nut. :D

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Nope, it's proportionate and sensible but like the Y2K bug, people will choose to believe otherwise to make it fit their beliefs. Sales people have sown the seeds of doubt in those predisposed to seeking the negatives in anything EU-related and I suspect you may have been at the buying end of such a person. One called them low-hanging fruit to me. Tell them that the EU is as bad as they think it is, flatter them for being right in 2016 and they'll open their cheque books before you can say Jacques Robinson!
Don't use customers' data for the purpose it wasn't intended for. Put yourself in the customer's shoes. Destroy customer data when it's no longer needed.
The issue is effective communication to people like you who try and find negatives in anything from the EU from the UK ICO and not the regulations themselves. That should change in May when their consumer campaign starts.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Interesting article on Cambridge Analytica.

http://adage.com/article/media/cambr...tstorm/312798/

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

:erm: not sure I like the sound of that, just what would constitute a legitimate interest . . or is it too broad a subject?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Proportionate? Sensible? Andrew, this legislation applies not only to medium and large size organisations, it applies to all organisations - even local football clubs and organised litter pickers. I have already found myself trying to dissuade some very active people from giving up their voluntary activities due to this ridiculously over the top piece of law.

For those who don't understand what this is all about, here is a very straight forward guide to what every organisation now has to do. Now just think what is involved to put something together which is going to be compliant with this. The full horror starts to dawn on you when you read this.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4...about-the-GDPR