FrancieBrady wrote: » What a great way to get people to vote for you. Do you stop to think before posting?
wicklowstevo wrote: » or to stop people from publicly being critical of their organisation . they wouldn't do that would they ?
wicklowstevo wrote: » an organisation that has many "former" terrorists and criminals in its ranks looking for peoples address's ? sure that's not of concern to anyone its just another facet of sf that retains its sinister terrorist aspects
Fann Linn wrote: » Electoral register is available online and in public libraries. Really tinfoil hat stuff frightening some folks around here.
Bambi wrote: » This is not the election register though.
Fann Linn wrote: » If clowns wish to post personal info on social media freely, it's not really SF or any other entities fault if they wish to harvest it and use it.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Sher nothing SF do is SF's fault
FrancieBrady wrote: » I agree there may be GDPR issues,
markodaly wrote: » There is no 'may' about it. This is an absolute clear breach of GDPR. Data mining from Facebook and the electoral registry and chucking this data into your own private database, for private party use, use that no one has given permission to, is a clear breach of GDPR. Anyone that has data belonging to you HAS to be upfront about it and if requested, they should delete that data ASAP when requested. I hope the data protection regulator takes them to the cleaners.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Over 7000 of the membership wanted Coveney, just over 3000 wanted Leo. FG has no interest in what the members want. FACT, as can be seen from the numbers. What other parties do or don't do, doesn't change that fact.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Have you for the breakdown of membership votes electing Mary Lou? I'm struggling to find it online and who she ran against. Is the leader voted by membership only in SF or is it an electoral collage type voting system?
FrancieBrady wrote: » A member of SF explained here awhile back how it is done. It's a branch nomination process afaik.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Would be interested to see the explanation. Like your reply it does not appear to be very transparent. Can you point me to the SF member who poster it here?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I get addressed mail from all the major parties. Perhaps time to have a look at this. Rap a few knuckles.
markodaly wrote: » Divert away, but this is an SF issue when they release a handbook internally stating their members to 'elicit' home addresses of people, to chuck into their own private database. Anyone who provides such information must be given all the T&C's of what and how their data is treated. I doubt some dude on Facebook is going to do that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No I can't. It was a while ago.
markodaly wrote: » These types of posts are often a 'I don't want to have to explain negative news'. It is true of course. Some of the boys in West Belfast decided who the next president of SF was going to be. The general membership had zero say. #Notanormalparty.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Why bother reference it in that case? Just say you don't know how the leader of SF is elected and leave it there instead of deflecting.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That's why I said there may be GDPR issues.
When data is collected, data subjects must be clearly informed about the extent of data collection, the legal basis for processing of personal data, how long data is retained, if data is being transferred to a third-party and/or outside the EU, and any automated decision-making that is made on a solely algorithmic basis. Data subjects must be informed of their privacy rights under the GDPR, including their right to revoke consent to data processing at any time, their right to view their personal data and access an overview of how it is being processed, their right to obtain a portable copy of the stored data, their right to erasure of their data under certain circumstances, their right to contest any automated decision-making that was made on a solely algorithmic basis, and their right to file complaints with a Data Protection Authority. As such, the data subject must also be provided with contact details for the data controller and their designated data protection officer, where applicable.[26][27]
FrancieBrady wrote: » Any back up for that Mark?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I had no reason to disbelieve the poster.
Deleted User wrote: » It’s decided by Ted Howell, Gerry Kelly, Adams, Slab, and a few others. I’d say the ‘delegates’ from Dublin North West and Kerry had a say as well. Of course Bobby was involved before he popped his clogs.
markodaly wrote: » There IS GDPR issues. Not 'may' about it. Also, just off the top of my head, does everyone accessing the private Database have training in GDPR? I doubt.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Have you any reason to disbelieve this poster?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes. The idea that a party the size of SF would have voluntary members who would tolerate that. The poster I mentioned explained the process in a calm and reasoned way without sensationalist redtop tropes.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » The poster you mentioned has not been named yet. Who was the poster? Would like to read the process for myself.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I have a vague memory of who it was...they still post. They might contribute again.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)