Government & Post Election Discussion
20-03-2018, 23:16
|
#1216
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
CA only deals with commercial organisations and political organisations so your reference to them is spurious as they do not have dealings with the public.
|
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.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 01:10
|
#1217
|
Sad Doig Fan!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Barry South Wales
Age: 68
Services: With VM for BB 250Mb service.(Deal)
Posts: 11,679
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 07:07
|
#1218
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 17:53
|
#1219
|
Sad Doig Fan!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Barry South Wales
Age: 68
Services: With VM for BB 250Mb service.(Deal)
Posts: 11,679
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
Thank you for showing your ignorance "Grand Metropolitan plc was a leisure, manufacturing and property conglomerate" some drinks company.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 18:33
|
#1220
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
Thank you for showing your ignorance "Grand Metropolitan plc was a leisure, manufacturing and property conglomerate" some drinks company.
|
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.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 19:46
|
#1221
|
Sad Doig Fan!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Barry South Wales
Age: 68
Services: With VM for BB 250Mb service.(Deal)
Posts: 11,679
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
They were never a brewer but bought some breweries.
Wrong again Andrew.
|
|
|
21-03-2018, 20:21
|
#1222
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
They were never a brewer but bought some breweries.
Wrong again Andrew.
|
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.
|
|
|
22-03-2018, 10:28
|
#1223
|
vox populi vox dei
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the last resort
Services: every thing
Posts: 13,739
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
4) 2 contradicts 3
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
|
|
|
22-03-2018, 11:27
|
#1224
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
It's necessary and Jon has explained to you why this is so. We're now in the 21st century, not the 19th. Even the week's revelations about Cambridge Analytica should have made you consider your posts more laterally as they could be classified as a small organisation.
Stating on your website in plain language why you are collecting information and the purpose for what it will be used for is not a burden, it's common sense and people are entitled to dealing with organisations that operate in this way. Your suggested approach of telling people that your data is being collected and they should refer to sub-section 7.1.2 of a particular regulation is unfair to most people who are not legally-trained.
Once again, you start off with the the objective of trying to criticise the EU and trying to get the facts to fit your thesis. Like a square peg in a round hole, they don't.
|
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.
|
|
|
23-03-2018, 21:17
|
#1225
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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.
|
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.
Last edited by 1andrew1; 23-03-2018 at 21:20.
|
|
|
24-03-2018, 00:25
|
#1226
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
Thank you for making my point for me so explicitely, Andrew!
Sledgehammer. Nut.
|
|
|
24-03-2018, 05:27
|
#1227
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,327
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Thank you for making my point for me so explicitely, Andrew!
Sledgehammer. Nut.
|
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.
Last edited by 1andrew1; 24-03-2018 at 05:59.
|
|
|
24-03-2018, 09:18
|
#1228
|
Sad Doig Fan!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Barry South Wales
Age: 68
Services: With VM for BB 250Mb service.(Deal)
Posts: 11,679
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
|
|
|
24-03-2018, 10:43
|
#1229
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: At the Leaving door
Posts: 4,050
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Remember, a company's legitimate interest in processing data overrule's an individual's consent.
|
not sure I like the sound of that, just what would constitute a legitimate interest . . or is it too broad a subject?
|
|
|
24-03-2018, 10:56
|
#1230
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
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
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:58.
|