KildareP wrote: » OK, if someone approached me tomorrow to say "build a database that will win our party an election" (after all, why would you go to the effort of building a database, if not to increase your chances at winning elections?), my questions will be: Who is registered to vote? Well that's the electoral register. Offers absolutely no insight whatsoever! May as well just lookup the electoral register directly each time you need to know. So I need to ask more questions and then establish more detail outside of the electoral register. Do these people vote for our party? If yes, great! If no, why not? Simply knowing they do not vote for our party is of little additional use beyond knowing they're registered to vote. We need to convert them into voters. I need to know who they vote for instead? What is instead's party doing that our party is not? What could our party do that would make them consider voting for us? Do they not vote for anyone else because they feel disillusioned? Or do they just not bother voting at all because they couldn't be bothered? To start getting an idea of what might make them consider our party, I'd need to establish what sort of things matter to this person and so I'd need to know things like: How old are they? Where did they go to school? Have they gone to college? What did they study? Do they still live with their parents? If they've moved out, are they renting and sharing, renting alone, have bought their own house, used help to buy, or availed of affordable housing? Whereabouts do they live? Where did they live previously? Do they have a car? What type of car? How old is it? Do they work? What do they work at? Where do they work? How long have they worked there and any jobs previous? How much do they earn? Have they got a pension? Have they get private health insurance? Are they married? Have they got kids? Suddenly I'm looking to gather quite a large amount of extremely private and sensitive information about individuals. But if I argue it's OK to do it under the guise of doing so for "electoral purposes", is that still OK? And that's the problem - where do you draw the line on when it's still deemed to be "using this information properly" for "electoral purposes" and when that's no longer the case? Who even gets to draw the line, in the absence of GDPR? Do I not have the right to not be profiled in this manner? Do I not have the right to make sure my sensitive information collected and stored about me is not at risk of being leaked in a breach? Of course - I'm not saying this is what Sinn Fein have done, none of us know what is in their database at this time. But arguing the GDPR shouldn't apply where information is being collected for "electoral purposes" is very open to interpretation as above. This is exactly the sort of scenario that the GDPR was brought in to define.
Overheal wrote: » That's an awfully vague example.
markodaly wrote: » How is that different? SF is a private political party?
Overheal wrote: » I think you realize that the reference was made with regard to how data can be misused with regard to elections.
skimpydoo wrote: » Mary Lou said last night that SF used to have a data compliance offer but now have a data protection officer. It looks like they might have been slightly confused about GDPR and I am sure other political parties were as equally confused no matter how you try to spin it.
cee_jay wrote: » How do you propose they monitor databases they have no knowledge of?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you saying political parties shouldn't be allowed to gather any data for electoral purposes?
beakerjoe wrote: » It is...... I had an online order from a department store a year or so ago, collected it from Store, removed the packaging, asked the assistant could I bin the packaging. she replied she couldnt as it was against GDPR. Thats not GDPR gone made, its people either using GDPR as an excuse not to do something or fear of falling foul of GDPR. Either way the issue wasnt GDPR, its the stores lack of understanding of GDPR.
expectationlost wrote: » be proactive
expectationlost wrote: » it also has nothing to do with politics
markodaly wrote: » Are you saying any private entity should be allowed to gather any data for electoral purposes?
beakerjoe wrote: » Elaborate? What should the DPC do exactly?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ask questions? And go from there = proactive.
beakerjoe wrote: » ???? What questions though? Their is no onus for the DPC to investigate unless they had evidence that data wasnt being used responsibly. They have recently wrote to SF seeking clarity and it seems advice was given on best practice. The DPC cant assume every organisation is misusing data,
Deleted User wrote: » To me the biggest problem in relation to GDPR and politics is that the Government sets the rate of funding that the DPC (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/data-protection-commission-acutely-strained-by-big-tech-cases-1.4457683) will receive every year and has consistently set it below what needs to be done to run an effective service. We cannot try and be the tech capital of Europe and also have a terribly funded DPC. Anyone who has had any dealings with the DPC will tell you that they are incredibly slow moving, there is currently a judical review pending against them for taking 2 years to get to the report stage of a case (https://noyb.eu/en/irish-high-court-judicial-review-against-dpc-admitted) personally I am almost 2 years into a case with them and its not even near a preliminary report stage because they're dragging their feet so much. However if you're a well connected politician you can somehow get a full statutory inquiry by the DPC into a newspaper publishing information you put online yourself in no time at all (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html)
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Do you have a database?' 'Can you tell us the following....' Proactive. Not hard work is it? Give them powers if they dont have them, accept the world is changing and things are going to become digiral. Strikes me the lax reactive environment suited everyone.
beakerjoe wrote: » Every business has a database, they havent the resources to do what your asking. Our Government just doesn't have the money to fund it. Like every state agency.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What resources do you need to ask questions?
beakerjoe wrote: » How would they have knowledge? Crystal ball?
beakerjoe wrote: » Seriously? You need employees. they dont have an endless supply of employees. Its a very small organization.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well then you have to say this is not something governments have felt was important? If they wont resource the waychdog properly.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, if that is what it is for.
expectationlost wrote: » if only there were large companies earning billions operating here they could tax
beakerjoe wrote: » Who would then leave.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/87962ff026856470eacf12f9c3179c90.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/589515102ac9643de8128b44e62aa24b.svg)
