blanch152 wrote: » The bit in bold shows up your lack of understanding of the principle of consent in GDPR. People contact a political party and volunteer their information, political party obtains consent and retains details, absolutely no problem that the party retains data on those constituents.
Creating a whole new database based on the electoral register and covering every voter in the country is a whole new ballgame from a GDPR perspective.
That is where SF have a real problem. That many don't understand the distinction is just a function of their inability to grasp GDPR.
After all, only a few hours ago, there were posters claiming expertise and saying SF had no issues, all before Mary-Lou went on TV and admitted to two breaches of GDPR and that the DPC may have the opinion that there are more.
jmcc wrote: » Perhaps FG had it on specific pages and used it to measure conversion? Regards...jmcc
DD says No member of the public is 'recorded on a database ' Political parties only use the Register of Electors and the 'marked register' Both public documents. Available and used by all political parties and candidates.
expectationlost wrote: » to me it sound like they may have used but dont anymore, they used it in 2016
Sinn Fein are terrible blaa blaa
blanch152 wrote: » She refused to say that the IRA member who looked out to sea and saw children on the boat and detonated the bomb was wrong. Incredible stuff.
expectationlost wrote: » because the electorate are not members of the public?
jmcc wrote: » I understand the consent element of GDPR. The point I was making was that SF has to ensure that the handling of data on one centralised database is compliant. The other parties, who do not have centralised databases according to RTE, potentially have to ensure that data handling on multiple databases are compliant. SF has a single problem. The other parties may have many problems. GDPR only entered into Irish law in May 2018 and many of those small databases used to store constituent data may predate GDPR. Regards...jmcc
touts wrote: » Over the years I have criticized Sinn Fein policy on my social media. I am now very concerned that this database has information about me that could be used against me should they come to power. Accordingly I have sent them a GDPR data request today requesting a copy of all data stored on this database about me. I suggest everyone who is concerned about the information Sinn Fein have gathered about them do likewise. I also copied the office of the Data Protection Commissioner on the request so that Sinn Fein are less likely to ignore my request. Again if you request to see your information on their database I suggest you also copy the Data Protection Commissioner.https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/data_protection/rights_under_general_data_protection_regulation.html
blanch152 wrote: » She didn't actually say that it wasn't hosted in Philadelphia, she said that the company organising it was legitimate. A nice way of avoiding the question, watch it back carefully. You seem to have bought her dissembling.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Sinn féin has a problem, it's data base isn't compliant. There's no need to try to deflect. It's a SF problem!
Deleted User wrote: » The victim hood from SF really is something else. It’s always someone else’s fault or everyone is out to get them. Like a stroppy teenager, only a teenager with links to crime networks, money laundering, and paramilitaries.
blanch152 wrote: » The simplest thing for Sinn Fein to do is to publish the full correspondence between them and the DPC. Sinn Fein tell us they are all for transparency, let them show us.
bobbysands81 wrote: » Absolutely no political party is fully GDPR compliant. So far, and I do state so far, this is an absolute non-story. Nowhere, no company, no organisation is fully GDPR compliant. Anyone that has had anything to do with GDPR will attest to this. No hospital, no political party, no company, no organisation, nowhere is fully GDPR compliant.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The big take away from the programme really was this. Get them all into a room and get them in shape is the only answer really.
blanch152 wrote: » Let's just start with SF publishing the correspondence between them and the DPC, after all we are all on that database, surely we have a right to know.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'd like to see all the parties correspondence. It's an all party issue as we heard last night. FG's sinister and secret use of cookie's and Facebook was also mentioned as were issues with some other parties. Best thing to happen is what Philip Ryan precipitated- that is ALL of them being investigated. I said there may be GDPR issues for SF and there are.
blanch152 wrote: » The victim mentality raises its head again. The FG issue can be debated on the FG thread. All I am asking is that people support the request that SF publish all the correspondence with the DPC.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Victim mentality' from someone who has said from the start that SF may have GDPR issues with this? Sure blanch. I am not to bothered to be wading through DPC correspondence myself, I would trust him/her to be competent enough to sort these issues. Probably better if the whole 'GDPR and Irish political parties' had it's own thread really at this stage. A lot of it is very specialist (almost nerdy) stuff tbh that doesn't affect most people on a day to day basis. It's hard to see any affect on my life of FG retaining my IP address or FF sending my data out of Europe.
blanch152 wrote: » The thing is the Sinn Fein issue affects every single voting adult in this country, we have a right to know what they were doing. Publish the correspondence so that we can be certain that the statements made by Mary-Lou are true.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You could make a FOI request if you are that interested? Me, I'm looking forward to Philip Ryan's breathless exposé of all other parties secret and 'shinester' activity in this weeks Sunday's.
blanch152 wrote: » An FOI request of Sinn Fein? They are not covered by FOI. Sinn Fein are the champions of transparency and accountability, we hear it all the time from Pearse, Eoin and Louise. Suddenly, when the spotlight falls on them, they rush for the shadows.
Deleted User wrote: » We all know by now that SF took the freely available electoral register, digitised it, and then ‘augmented’ that data with information they gleaned from Facebook scraping and surveys. They haven’t denied that all party activists with access to the system has access to all records - no attempt made to segregate data so it’s only available to those who should have access to it. They also record perceived voting intentions. What they haven’t answered yet is whether canvassers or other party activists record additional information about members of the electorate - things the person is interested in, number of children based on finding out at the door, best time to call again, dangerous dog in the garden, recently deceased etc. Was there a way of entering free text info about a person into the system?
blanch152 wrote: » No doubt that they are working away feverishly in Germany or Serbia trying to cleanse the system before there is an inspection.
Deleted User wrote: » That would make it a criminal matter. All it would take is one mole with access to the Abú system to reveal that. I’m sure there’s at least one planted somewhere.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Which is all those who insist this is a single party issue want to infer. Get as many insinuations in as possible make it as 'shinister' as possible. Agendas clear as mountain spring water.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
