General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

McMurphy · 29-05-2019 12:24pm

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, hands...

I think she admitted that items were in her hands....

Doesn't take a judge and a court to know that this could be a factor in the accident...

No, she accidentally blurted out that she had something in each hand, when SOR asked her to clarify, she hid behind the judge needing to adjudicate on that.

The story is still making front page headlines, and Josepha Madigan keeps getting mentioned, so I'm wondering how much the indo in particular are aware of her role and what part she's played in this.

To be completely fair to her (Madigan) she may be guilty of nothing more than advising Bailey to take legal action based on what info was relayed to her via Bailey, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about if you were in her shoes.

walshb · 29-05-2019 12:40pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, she accidentally blurted out that she had something in each hand, when SOR asked her to clarify, she hid behind the judge needing to adjudicate on that.

The story is still making front page headlines, and Josepha Madigan keeps getting mentioned, so I'm wondering how much the indo in particular are aware of her role and what part she's played in this.

To be completely fair to her (Madigan) she may be guilty of nothing more than advising Bailey to take legal action based on what info was relayed to her via Bailey, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about if you were in her shoes.

Agreed on Madigan....

MBs issue. She needs to accept ALL responsibility here for this....

Her interview stunk of the blame game...

Hiding behind the "I was advised" nonsense.

She chose to take a case and try get a hotel to pay for an accident that really appears to have been her fault.

markodaly · 29-05-2019 12:46pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does GDPR apply to CCTV footage from a public venue/area?

It happened in a Hotel, which is private property and the data belongs to the Hotel. They are also obliged to handle and store this data as per GDPR rules. They would have no right to release footage of their patrons to the public domain, as this would constitute a breach of GDPR.

Remember, the footage of this unfortunate incident occurred in 2015, long before GDRP came into affect, God only knows how many people the footage was passed on to (insurers/defence/prosecution/staff members for the aforementioned and hotel/hotel security staff etc etc)

Footage has to be stored for a period of time and then destroyed. If people have the footage, they too are obliged to store it as per GDPR rules.

A copy could well end up in the public domain.

It could... and then we could see another lawsuit on our hands.

LuckyLloyd · 29-05-2019 1:04pm

No doubt it would! Maria and her friends are high on lawsuits and low on shame.

McMurphy · 29-05-2019 1:12pm

markodaly wrote: »

It happened in a Hotel, which is private property and the data belongs to the Hotel. They are also obliged to handle and store this data as per GDPR rules. They would have no right to release footage of their patrons to the public domain, as this would constitute a breach of GDPR.

Footage has to be stored for a period of time and then destroyed. If people have the footage, they too are obliged to store it as per GDPR rules.

It could... and then we could see another lawsuit on our hands.

You missed what I said (I suspect purposely) about GDRP only coming into effect in 2018.

Would you expect a public house/restaurant to be prosecuted because someone was allowed to be seen smoking in their premises in 2003 as an example?

The hotel would have been under no legal restrictions handling such data pre it's introduction.

Simple blurring of faces ought to be enough for people to read between the lines - assuming of course that GDRP can be enforced on an anonymous source surrounding something that happened in thjs incident anyway.

Twitter will be worth keeping an eye on in the coming days.

Podge_irl · 29-05-2019 1:18pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You missed what I said (I suspect purposely) about GDRP only coming into effect in 2018.

Would you expect a public house/restaurant to be prosecuted because someone was allowed to be seen smoking in their premises in 2003 as an example?

The hotel would have been under no legal restrictions handling such data pre it's introduction.

Anyone holding the data would be under those legal restrictions immediately that GDPR came into effect however. There was no exemption for already existing data.

Which is not to suggest it won't now leek of course, but it would be illegal for it do so.

McMurphy · 29-05-2019 1:28pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyone holding the data would be under those legal restrictions immediately that GDPR came into effect however. There was no exemption for already existing data.

Which is not to suggest it won't now leek of course, but it would be illegal for it do so.

I'm willing to bet that if a copy exists, someone's willing to take that chance.

From inside, or from outside this jurisdiction.

I repeat, if Madigan is one of the unnamed friends with Bailey, and the whole things on CCTV, I'd say she's on her knees praying it doesn't make it's way in to the interweb.

Podge_irl · 29-05-2019 1:39pm

I'm not sure being in the vicinity of a silly idiot is much grounds for political turmoil to be honest.

If she had any involvement in the legal side of things in her professional capacity it is also not going to become public. Trying to drag her into this seems a bit ridiculous.

L1011 · 29-05-2019 1:41pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm not sure being in the vicinity of a silly idiot is much grounds for political turmoil to be honest.

If she had any involvement in the legal side of things in her professional capacity it is also not going to become public. Trying to drag her into this seems a bit ridiculous.

Currently she has absolute clearance just by saying that she was only told about the incident by Bailey and everything is protected by client secrecy anyway, no more comments

BUT if she saw it or part of it in person it would become problematic. However I think we'd have heard rumours by now if it was the case.

Podge_irl · 29-05-2019 1:43pm

L1011 wrote: »

Currently she has absolute clearance just by saying that she was only told about the incident by Bailey and everything is protected by client secrecy anyway, no more comments

BUT if she saw it or part of it in person it would become problematic. However I think we'd have heard rumours by now if it was the case.

All she has to do is stick to the client secrecy and just doing my job lines and she is fine now anyway - she will get some stick but it won't last long. There is also an important distinction that any involvement she had was before becoming a TD. Bailey is the only one in serious trouble.

markodaly · 29-05-2019 2:01pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You missed what I said (I suspect purposely) about GDRP only coming into effect in 2018.

I didn't address it because it's null and void. The act is retrospective in a way.
If you today in 2019, hold that CCTV file from that hotel, it's covered under GDPR, it doesn't matter if it happened in 2015.

The hotel would have been under no legal restrictions handling such data pre it's introduction.

Actually, it would, as it would be covered under the 2003 Data Protection Act.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/6/enacted/en/html

Simple blurring of faces ought to be enough for people to read between the lines - assuming of course that GDRP can be enforced on an anonymous source surrounding something that happened in thjs incident anyway.

You clearly know nothing about data protection if you think this is the case.

AndrewJRenko · 29-05-2019 2:05pm

L1011 wrote: »

Currently she has absolute clearance just by saying that she was only told about the incident by Bailey and everything is protected by client secrecy anyway, no more comments

BUT if she saw it or part of it in person it would become problematic. However I think we'd have heard rumours by now if it was the case.

She has also claimed to be out of the family practice since she became a Minister. So it would raise the question as to whether she is still practicing law or not.

markodaly · 29-05-2019 2:06pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that if a copy exists, someone's willing to take that chance.

From inside, or from outside this jurisdiction.

Before you cream yourself at the thought, the fines for breaches of GPDR can be up to €20 million or 4% global turnover, whichever is higher.

If such a blatant breach was to occur, the DPC (Data Protection Commissioner) can begin legal proceedings.

L1011 · 29-05-2019 2:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She has also claimed to be out of the family practice since she became a Minister. So it would raise the question as to whether she is still practicing law or not.

The event happened before she was a TD let alone Minister.

Muahahaha · 29-05-2019 9:15pm

markodaly wrote: »

You clearly know nothing about data protection if you think this is the case.

RTE must know nothing too because they had a report on the news earlier with blurred faces

McMurphy · 29-05-2019 9:37pm

markodaly wrote: »

You clearly know nothing about data protection if you think this is the case.

You clearly are an expert at spin.

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that blurring someone's face in footage would be tantamount to breaking any GDRP related bolloxology?

I'll be here when you get back with it.

In the meantime, I suspect there might be a few TDs/minister's from the FG party with squeaky bums.

I await the pixelated boat races appearing in the media.

McMurphy · 29-05-2019 10:56pm

markodaly wrote: »

Before you cream yourself at the thought, the fines for breaches of GPDR can be up to €20 million or 4% global turnover, whichever is higher.

If such a blatant breach was to occur, the DPC (Data Protection Commissioner) can begin legal proceedings.

Define breach?

Cookie_Monster · 29-05-2019 11:18pm

Not Govt but Central bank related, probably not worth of its own thread...
Gabriel Makhlouf who is the next head of the central bank is current working for NZ Treasury and has been implicated in actively lying to government to try and save face in light of a "hacking scandal" surrounding NZs budget this week.

He claimed that Treasury was hacked and information stolen, and despite being made aware it was freely available on their site, did not admit this and tried to implicate opposition MPs in the "data theft"

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235615

Seems he'll fit right into Irish political circles anyway

blanch152 · 29-05-2019 11:33pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does GDPR apply to CCTV footage from a public venue/area?

Remember, the footage of this unfortunate incident occurred in 2015, long before GDRP came into affect, God only knows how many people the footage was passed on to (insurers/defence/prosecution/staff members for the aforementioned and hotel/hotel security staff etc etc)

A copy could well end up in the public domain.

It doesn't matter when the footage occurred.

Release of it now into the public domain is a breach of GDPR.

It can be used in a court case or by the Gardai investigating a crime. However, if you have old CCTV of me, you cannot release it without my permssion or in certain legal situations.

blanch152 · 29-05-2019 11:38pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You clearly are an expert at spin.

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that blurring someone's face in footage would be tantamount to breaking any GDRP related bolloxology?

I'll be here when you get back with it.

In the meantime, I suspect there might be a few TDs/minister's from the FG party with squeaky bums.

I await the pixelated boat races appearing in the media.

There is nothing worse that people who don't understand GDPR.

If a person is identifiable, then there is a GDPR issue. If you release footage of Maria Bailey on a swing, saying that it is Maria Bailey, it doesn't matter if you blur the face, because she has already been identified by your labelling.

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 6:53am

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nothing worse that people who don't understand GDPR.

If a person is identifiable, then there is a GDPR issue. If you release footage of Maria Bailey on a swing, saying that it is Maria Bailey, it doesn't matter if you blur the face, because she has already been identified by your labelling.

Firstly I never said anything about naming bailey, I said someone could just release a video with blurred faces, I even said that should be enough for people to "read between the lines"

Someone earlier predicted that the thread would be pulled down a legalese rabbit hole, so we will leave it at that.

I look forward to the CCTV footage being leaked.

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 6:56am

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't matter when the footage occurred.

Release of it now into the public domain is a breach of GDPR.

It can be used in a court case or by the Gardai investigating a crime. However, if you have old CCTV of me, you cannot release it without my permssion or in certain legal situations.

I wonder if the Dean hotel have any legal grounds?

FreudianSlippers · 30-05-2019 8:59am

I hate when people go on about GDPR when they haven't bothered even looking at the legislation. This is all covered there in plain English (or whatever EU language you want)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Define breach?

‘personal data breach’ means a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed;

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Firstly I never said anything about naming bailey, I said someone could just release a video with blurred faces, I even said that should be enough for people to "read between the lines"

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I wonder if the Dean hotel have any legal grounds?

Legal grounds for what?

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 9:19am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I hate when people go on about GDPR when they haven't bothered even looking at the legislation. This is all covered there in plain English (or whatever EU language you want)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN

‘personal data breach’ means a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed;

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

Legal grounds for what?

Maybe the Dean (or some other unknown source) will leak a pixelated video of how not to use the swings in any Irish public venue.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch · 30-05-2019 11:13am

Leo seemingly briefing FG to prepare for an election.

Probably a good time to call it, and get it done with before the next Big Brexit date, and possibly consolidate FG in power, potentially with a rejuvenated Green Party.

SF are surely absolutely toxic now, for FF to consider partnering with them, so it may be a really good time for Leo to strike while the iron is hot.

markodaly · 30-05-2019 1:25pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You clearly are an expert at spin.

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that blurring someone's face in footage would be tantamount to breaking any GDRP related bolloxology?

I'll be here when you get back with it.

In the meantime, I suspect there might be a few TDs/minister's from the FG party with squeaky bums.

I await the pixelated boat races appearing in the media.

As I said, your comments have clearly demonstrated you know nothing about data protection and the legal remits surrounding it.

If you want to argue the legal details head off to the Legal Discussion forum where you can be schooled on the matter.

markodaly · 30-05-2019 1:30pm

Chandler Inexpensive Wench wrote: »

Leo seemingly briefing FG to prepare for an election.

Probably a good time to call it, and get it done with before the next Big Brexit date, and possibly consolidate FG in power, potentially with a rejuvenated Green Party.

SF is surely absolutely toxic now, for FF to consider partnering with them, so it may be a really good time for Leo to strike while the iron is hot.

It's a high-risk game but SF are in dire straits as is the rabble of alphabet soup looney left.

The big question is how can FG push FF back and how can FF credibility stand up to FG when they backed them these past 4 years.

I dont know, I would not be surprised if we do not have an election till 2021.

James Brown · 30-05-2019 1:46pm

Chandler Inexpensive Wench wrote: »

Leo seemingly briefing FG to prepare for an election.

Probably a good time to call it, and get it done with before the next Big Brexit date, and possibly consolidate FG in power, potentially with a rejuvenated Green Party.

SF are surely absolutely toxic now, for FF to consider partnering with them, so it may be a really good time for Leo to strike while the iron is hot.

I wouldn't say toxic. They did terrible. Toxic would be FF after the IMF came or Maria Bailey after her claim became public. Not being as popular as you'd like doesn't make you toxic.
If FG can partner with FF after what they did and who they are, SF shouldn't be a problem for FF. In fact it will give FF more pull on the junior SF.

AndrewJRenko · 30-05-2019 3:36pm

L1011 wrote: »

The event happened before she was a TD let alone Minister.

Thanks, I had missed that. Though as the legal papers were submitted only recently, the question is 'when was the advice given'?

McMurphy · 31-05-2019 7:45am

I still get the impression from the independent that this story, is ultimately going to lead towards a 2 for 1 (maybe more) ending.

Madigan should be 'candid' on swing fall case - Martin

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments