The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

It is wrong because it breaches the principles of consent.

Facebook does the same, but I waive my consent freely. As do Twitter and every other single website. Sinn Fein did not obtain consent from me to colour-code me or process any information about me. That is illegal, a gross infringement of rights.

Why should anyone need someone's consent to remember that they're not a supporter of a party and therefore shouldn't be canvassed or texted? This in my view is just data protection gone mad. It doesn't make any sense. They have access to the register already, what conceivably negative consequences for you or me could there be from SF marking you down as a die-hard opponent, FG and FF marking me down as a die-hard opponent, and SF marking me as someone it might be worth knocking on the door of to see if they can convince me to switch from PBP to SF, while FG would know it might be worth knocking on your door?

I left FF out of your example because I'm fairly sure I remember you saying that you're as opposed to FF as you are to SF, in the past. Now, if I'm wrong, and I was the one dispatching canvassers for FF, I'd have just wasted your time and probably annoyed you by having people knock on your front door to ask you to consider voting for your local FF candidate. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if I'd actually made a note of it when you said you didn't like FF, so that I would have known not to waste your time in doing this?

I just don't see how this can possibly be regarded as an issue. People have a right to recall from memory that you hate SF and are possibly open to voting FG, why should it be any different if they actually write that down?

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

All of them. Canvassing should be banned and election posters should be banned.

So how would you suggest that new political parties gain name recognition or a foothold in Irish politics then? Or new independent candidates?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why should anyone need someone's consent to remember that they're not a supporter of a party and therefore shouldn't be canvassed or texted? This in my view is just data protection gone mad. It doesn't make any sense. They have access to the register already, what conceivably negative consequences for you or me could there be from SF marking you down as a die-hard opponent, FG and FF marking me down as a die-hard opponent, and SF marking me as someone it might be worth knocking on the door of to see if they can convince me to switch from PBP to SF, while FG would know it might be worth knocking on your door?

I left FF out of your example because I'm fairly sure I remember you saying that you're as opposed to FF as you are to SF, in the past. Now, if I'm wrong, and I was the one dispatching canvassers for FF, I'd have just wasted your time and probably annoyed you by having people knock on your front door to ask you to consider voting for your local FF candidate. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if I'd actually made a note of it when you said you didn't like FF, so that I would have known not to waste your time in doing this?

I just don't see how this can possibly be regarded as an issue. People have a right to recall from memory that you hate SF and are possibly open to voting FG, why should it be any different if they actually write that down?

Boutique parties like PBP can probably count on one hand their supporters in some constituencies.

It’s different when you’re playing county hurling politics, dude. You’ve to abide by rules and laws. You might not like them, but that’s neither here nor there.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

You have no problem with your personal information being used in this way. That is great, that is fully in accordance with GDPR because you are giving consent to your information being used in that way. However, the other millions of people on the register haven't given that consent, yet Sinn Fein have used their personal information in that way. See the issue now?

They can only make such notes using information which is either already publicly available or comes from direct interactions between SF canvassers and potential voters, though. Once that information has been supplied, why is collating it considered wrong? It shouldn't be. And again I apply that across the board. If I post something publicly on Facebook, or I say something directly to the face of a canvasser from a political party, it has entered the domain of information that party has access to. Making a note of it is the logical conclusion.

Again BTW I apply this to all parties, no whataboutery or deflection here. I just think the whole issue is ridiculous. My ex is a card carrying member of the IFP, if she hasn't told them on no account to ever contact me looking for a vote I'd honestly be kinda annoyed considering how many times I've stated that I'd never vote for that shower in a million years.

It makes no sense to suggest that publicly available information, or information directly supplied to a party, shouldn't be considered ok for noting down. That's just... Not how people work? It never has been. This entire episode is just another example of how GDPR is an absolute disaster of a policy.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Boutique parties like PBP can probably count on one hand their supporters in some constituencies.

It’s different when you’re playing county hurling politics, dude. You’ve to abide by rules and laws. You might not like them, but that’s neither here nor there.

That's why I explicitly said "leaving GDPR aside". I'm not saying it isn't illegal, I'm curious as to any anyone supports the illegality. Frankly, if it is illegal, I'd be the first to call for the law to be changed. Do you have a problem with parties making such notes? Why, or why not?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is ridiculous.

How is accepting that they may have a case to answer and if they do then they should be fined, 'handwaving away' of any description?

Jesus H.

Your reply after that,as I pointed out
You used a reply to another shinner to do the hand waving
I'm afraid it was noticed

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Neither would breaches of GDPR regs maccored. But I'm sure we'll be told this is a capital offence or if the DPC finds no issue that he/she is corrupt or something.

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Your reply after that,as I pointed out
You used a reply to another shinner to do the hand waving
I'm afraid it was noticed

You have yet to point out what is untrue in any of what I posted there.

That's been noticed too.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They can only make such notes using information which is either already publicly available or comes from direct interactions between SF canvassers and potential voters, though. Once that information has been supplied, why is collating it considered wrong? It shouldn't be. And again I apply that across the board. If I post something publicly on Facebook, or I say something directly to the face of a canvasser from a political party, it has entered the domain of information that party has access to. Making a note of it is the logical conclusion.
.

I don't think you could count something friends only restricted on facebook as public if one of your friends happens to work for a political party and uses it about you and worse friends of yours if its access is friends of friends
Whats the story there?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have yet to point out what is untrue in any of what I posted there.

That's been noticed too.

But we're not talking about whats true or untrue
We're talking about your hand waving directly afterwards in the below post

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Neither would breaches of GDPR regs maccored. But I'm sure we'll be told this is a capital offence or if the DPC finds no issue that he/she is corrupt or something.

hatrickpatrick

Marine Layer wrote: »

I don't think you could count something friends only restricted on facebook as public if one of your friends happens to work for a political party and uses it about you and worse friends of yours if its access is friends of friends
Whats the story there?

Maybe it's just me, but I have friends who are members of political parties and I assume that those who work in my own constituency do indeed take note of the fact that I hate some parties and like others. If something is set to friends only, then you know who your friends are and who might see it. Regarding friends of friends, in a city with a social scene as interconnected as Dublin's I regard it as synonymous with public for my own use anyway. Again though maybe this is just me.

At the end of the day, it means I won't get hassled by ads or callouts from political parties I have no intention of ever voting for, while I'm more likely to see content from those I would consider voting for. Seems like a win-win to me and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. Nobody has really described why they'd take issue with this - which negatives specifically outweigh the positive in only getting targeted by parties or politicians you might actually be interested in voting for? If parties you hate mark you down as "don't bother this individual, he or she will never vote for us anyway", doesn't that just save you time? Where's the negative?

EDIT: Honestly maybe my approach to social media is just different to others. Maybe it's because I have friends from right across the political spectrum from far left to far right so I've always known that anything I put up on Facebook is visible to members of those parties, that it's never even occurred to me to have a problem with them making notes on it. As far as I'm concerned, it just saves me time and hassle.

Others may feel differently, I'm just curious as to why. What's the negative? The positive is that you're less likely to see content you're not interested in and more likely to see content you are interested in. What's the downside?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

But we're not talking about whats true or untrue
We're talking about your hand waving directly afterwards in the below post

What hand waving?

Is it a capital offence = NO,
If the DPC finds no issue, will there people calling him/her corrupt? Possible, given the PSNI and PPS were called corrupt in their decision not to prosecute SF reps.

So WHERE is this hand waving?

rdwight

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It makes no sense to suggest that publicly available information, or information directly supplied to a party, shouldn't be considered ok for noting down. That's just... Not how people work? It never has been. This entire episode is just another example of how GDPR is an absolute disaster of a policy.

Much as I like to see SF get a kicking, I'm inclined to agree with with you hp. Even under GDPR, it might be construed that telling certain candidates to f**k off on the doorstep is giving implicit permission that they make a note of your strong feelings and stay away the next election.

However if, as has been suggested, SF have been attempting to link people's social media comments with entries on the electoral register and keeping the results in a database then surely there would be no such permission implied




.

rdwight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D Language usage again.

'Gross'? It will be a fine if they have breached regs here blanch.

It will be a fine AND they will have to stop any nefarious record keeping.

And perhaps destroy current records.
And perhaps inform people whose privacy they have breached.

FrancieBrady

rdwight wrote: »

It will be a fine AND they will have to stop any nefarious record keeping.

And perhaps destroy current records.
And perhaps inform people whose privacy they have breached.

Yes, as many many have been fined. We are ranked 6th in the EU in terms of data breaches.

rdwight

rdwight wrote: »

It will be a fine AND they will have to stop any nefarious record keeping.

And perhaps destroy current records.
And perhaps inform people whose privacy they have breached.

It'd be an awful shame if it turned out to be a fine for €4.6 mill or thereabouts

I see the Serbian ‘party activists’ are no longer responsible for managing the social media accounts of Mary Lou and Michelle. Must have gotten one of their 200 employees to manage them instead.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why should anyone need someone's consent to remember that they're not a supporter of a party and therefore shouldn't be canvassed or texted? This in my view is just data protection gone mad. It doesn't make any sense. They have access to the register already, what conceivably negative consequences for you or me could there be from SF marking you down as a die-hard opponent, FG and FF marking me down as a die-hard opponent, and SF marking me as someone it might be worth knocking on the door of to see if they can convince me to switch from PBP to SF, while FG would know it might be worth knocking on your door?

I left FF out of your example because I'm fairly sure I remember you saying that you're as opposed to FF as you are to SF, in the past. Now, if I'm wrong, and I was the one dispatching canvassers for FF, I'd have just wasted your time and probably annoyed you by having people knock on your front door to ask you to consider voting for your local FF candidate. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if I'd actually made a note of it when you said you didn't like FF, so that I would have known not to waste your time in doing this?

I just don't see how this can possibly be regarded as an issue. People have a right to recall from memory that you hate SF and are possibly open to voting FG, why should it be any different if they actually write that down?

All due respect HP, and you're a poster i always find has an interesting perspective on a lot of stuff-

If GDPR existing only became a massive problem for you this week because SF have seemingly been bypassing it with their practices, the your issue is clearly not with GDPR existing.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So how would you suggest that new political parties gain name recognition or a foothold in Irish politics then? Or new independent candidates?

By having platforms and policies publicly available where people could come to them and engage.

Im not designing them just because i think doorstepping and postering are a load of bollox, like

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

All due respect HP, and you're a poster i always find has an interesting perspective on a lot of stuff-

If GDPR existing only became a massive problem for you this week because SF have seemingly been bypassing it with their practices, the your issue is clearly not with GDPR existing.

In fairness, if you work in an area that it covers, GDPR can be a massive pain in the rear, and counterproductive in a lot of cases.

Over reach, might be a word to describe aspects of it. Not to excuse a possible flagrant breach or handwave it away, before the complaints.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

All due respect HP, and you're a poster i always find has an interesting perspective on a lot of stuff-

If GDPR existing only became a massive problem for you this week because SF have seemingly been bypassing it with their practices, the your issue is clearly not with GDPR existing.

I've had a problem with GDPR ever since news websites abroad started blocking EU visitors, and other websites had to add these unimaginably irritating cookie popups to their home pages. It's a moronic piece of legislation which entirely failed in its objectives, but introduced a lot of ridiculous provisions which just made life difficult for everyone. I have a relative working for a public oversight body which deals regularly with GDPR and you wouldn't believe the amount of havoc it's caused - for example, question marks over whether people reported to that oversight body have the right to know who reported them (or gain enough 'side' information to figure it out). It's moronic.

In this particular case, as I've said, I've always assumed that parties operate a system like this, on paper or digitally. Don't understand how anyone could take issue with it, which is why I'm asking.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, if you work in an area that it covers, GDPR can be a massive pain in the rear, and counterproductive in a lot of cases.

Over reach, might be a word to describe aspects of it. Not to excuse a possible flagrant breach or handwave it away, before the complaints.

I agree with you here

And about slagging the corpse of prince phillip

And a few of the other minor bits of crap lately

But lets not pretend that the online oglaigh arent worse- far worse, tbh- for attempting to rabble rouse all over boards over petty or nothing issues on other threads

And im also not willing to pretend the serious issues raised against other parties are of the same order as the legitimate questions raised against SF

So, we'll no doubt continue as is i guess.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've had a problem with GDPR ever since news websites abroad started blocking EU visitors, and other websites had to add these unimaginably irritating cookie popups to their home pages. It's a moronic piece of legislation which entirely failed in its objectives, but introduced a lot of ridiculous provisions which just made life difficult for everyone. I have a relative working for a public oversight body which deals regularly with GDPR and you wouldn't believe the amount of havoc it's caused - for example, question marks over whether people reported to that oversight body have the right to know who reported them (or gain enough 'side' information to figure it out). It's moronic.

In this particular case, as I've said, I've always assumed that parties operate a system like this, on paper or digitally. Don't understand how anyone could take issue with it, which is why I'm asking.

I have an issue with any political party gathering personal data about people, including their political opinion, and putting it into a massive searchable database, accessible to lots of people, hosted outside Ireland, where they have done so without consent.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

I have an issue with any political party gathering personal data about people, including their political opinion, and putting it into a massive searchable database, accessible to lots of people, hosted outside Ireland, where they have done so without consent.

If it's information people have freely publicised or given directly to said party, it;s ridiculous to suggest that it can't be collated for convenience.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you here

And about slagging the corpse of prince phillip

And a few of the other minor bits of crap lately

But lets not pretend that the online oglaigh arent worse- far worse, tbh- for attempting to rabble rouse all over boards over petty or nothing issues on other threads

And im also not willing to pretend the serious issues raised against other parties are of the same order as the legitimate questions raised against SF

So, we'll no doubt continue as is i guess.

Here I have freely admitted that there may be 'an issue'. Despite the cliché description, no running away, quite possible SF ****ed up here.

We get it that some don't like their parties name in the muck, and will frequently call serious issues 'petty' or 'nothing', certain threads that users figure have 'run their course' in the middle of a criminal investigation spring to mind.
No idea why you are referencing Phillip.

rdwight

Marine Layer wrote: »

It'd be an awful shame if it turned out to be a fine for €4.6 mill or thereabouts

I think in that case we'd be told that it was the penniless southern branch of the "All Ireland Party" that breached the GDPR while the northern branch got the bequest (despite the bequest being “in trust for the political party in the Republic of Ireland known at this time as Sinn Féin”)

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the Serbian ‘party activists’ are no longer responsible for managing the social media accounts of Mary Lou and Michelle. Must have gotten one of their 200 employees to manage them instead.

Could be gone down to Mozambique Doc. Northern end.... it’s said a lot of them making good money in that neck of the woods. uhhhmm

Mutare is the base there they say.... take the road to Beira and hang a left.

Keeps the hand in like..

blanch152

jmcc wrote: »

So you have never used Google, Bing, Facebook, Twitter etc? What story about FFG (or Varadkar) is coming out in the next few days that FG has to get its friends in the Dublin media to run a non-story about SF? Could there be an adverse poll about to be published that shows FF as having gone through the 10% support floor? Could Varadkar be about to be charged? There's a terrible stench of fear from FG's antics. Why is that? Is there a General Election in the offing?

Regards...jmcc

The point is, I freely consented to the use by Google, Facebook and Twitter of my personal information in accordance with specified terms and conditions and they can only use whatever personal information I agree to give them.

I didn't consent to any of that with Sinn Fein.

As for the rest of your post, it's in line for the Whataboutery of the Day Award.

blanch152

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Could be gone down to Mozambique Doc. Northern end.... it’s said a lot of them making good money in that neck of the woods. uhhhmm

Mutare is the base there they say.... take the road to Beira and hang a left.

Keeps the hand in like..

I don't know about that, Brendan, you would need a fair few of the lads from South Armagh with you to go fishing in that pool. A lot of them can't be seen hanging around with legitimate SF types until this Paul Quinn business blows over. The Derry and Belfast boys are busy patrolling the streets stopping the riots.

expectationlost

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the thing. You are allowed to use the electoral register to send election material, however, the purpose for which Sinn Fein are using it goes beyond that.

are you sure SF's use goes beyond whats allowed?

expectationlost

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Much more reasonable article in the IT. These seem to be the core issues with this.


He says that while the national law – the Data Protection Act of 2018 – allows for the processing of personal data revealing political opinions where it is done in the course of electoral activities, this goes much further than what GDPR allows for.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-insists-its-voter-database-does-not-breach-data-laws-1.4538735

how does it go further then that?