Quiz Answers..famous People Closes...
Crosswords0 min ago
Goodness Me I'm With Cob Again....
24 Answers
Surely this falls under GDPR rules? It's hardly Stalanist, any company does this with disgruntled employees.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ymb
// The GDPR aims primarily to give control to individuals over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.
A processor of personal data must clearly disclose any data collection, declare the lawful basis and purpose for data processing, and state how long data is being retained and if it is being shared with any third parties or outside of the EEA. //
None of which applies to Labour revoking the permissions of ex-members to access their site.
This has nowt to do with the EU despite your obsession with blaming it for everything.
It is Labour’s site, and they can control who does and who desn’t have access.
// The GDPR aims primarily to give control to individuals over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.
A processor of personal data must clearly disclose any data collection, declare the lawful basis and purpose for data processing, and state how long data is being retained and if it is being shared with any third parties or outside of the EEA. //
None of which applies to Labour revoking the permissions of ex-members to access their site.
This has nowt to do with the EU despite your obsession with blaming it for everything.
It is Labour’s site, and they can control who does and who desn’t have access.
I think this *would* have to do with GDPR, if indeed it took place. The data in question would be, presumably, emails and names of Labour members. Under GDPR that effectively belongs not to the Labour Party but to the people whose emails they are, and only people with permission to use or share them can do so. As far as I can sensibly see, anyone who left the Labour Party would instantly have to re-apply for permission to use and distribute the emails.
Now, I might be wrong, of course. But that basically leaves three options: this happened, and one or more of the leaving Labour MPs has been careless; this happened, and one or more of the leaving MPs has been deliberately criminal under EU data regulations to cynically give their new grouping a kick-start; or no data has been misused and, while the Labour Party is right to put these safeguards in place, you have to question the motives of publicising it.
I'm rather inclined to believe the third option, at the moment: it's been hard not to notice just how vicious and aggressive the far left wing of the Labour Party have been in trying to dig up, or create, whatever dirt they can on the "Gang of Seven", and this could just be another angle of attack to smear them before they become too much of a threat.
Now, I might be wrong, of course. But that basically leaves three options: this happened, and one or more of the leaving Labour MPs has been careless; this happened, and one or more of the leaving MPs has been deliberately criminal under EU data regulations to cynically give their new grouping a kick-start; or no data has been misused and, while the Labour Party is right to put these safeguards in place, you have to question the motives of publicising it.
I'm rather inclined to believe the third option, at the moment: it's been hard not to notice just how vicious and aggressive the far left wing of the Labour Party have been in trying to dig up, or create, whatever dirt they can on the "Gang of Seven", and this could just be another angle of attack to smear them before they become too much of a threat.
// The situation is nothing like GDRP. GDRP is about privacy, and this is about security.//
erm that is why the ICO goes potty and throws the furniture around when there is a leak - because it ISNT interested in security but only privacy
never realised that
oh and whilst I am here - principal (sic) of least privilege conflicts with both the old and new data laws
being near or involved with data has nothing to do with whether consent has been given to use it .....
erm that is why the ICO goes potty and throws the furniture around when there is a leak - because it ISNT interested in security but only privacy
never realised that
oh and whilst I am here - principal (sic) of least privilege conflicts with both the old and new data laws
being near or involved with data has nothing to do with whether consent has been given to use it .....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.