FrancieBrady wrote: » You cannot get upset if someone assumes that all members have access if you say 'members have access' without definition. That is all I did, assume. Somebody has trouble accepting that.
Marine Layer wrote: » Well somebody believes you made a mistake assuming that, would be a better description tbh I doubt SF itself will be in a hurry to assume all members rather than just members have access Do I just register my new membership now or will I have to wait 2 weeks for say a physical membership card,to gain access to this treasure throve of email addresses,physical addresses,eircodes,who's married to who, voter registration ready d.o.b's etc etc
FrancieBrady wrote: » Somebody accused me of lying...let's not be putting a tooth in it. Turns out the only person using quote tags was them.
Marine Layer wrote: » Do you think you were mistaken in the rush to declare Abú less secret than it actually was? Or what was it you were at?
bobbysands81 wrote: » “Websites for TDs from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party, Sinn Féin, and the Social Democrats were not compliant, an analysis by the Irish Examiner found.”https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40273802.html Looks like the FGers jumped in a tad too quickly here... as was pointed out to them umpteen times already on the thread.
FrancieBrady wrote: » When I am shown (as I asked the poster who accused me of lying) that only selected members had access...not a problem accepting it. Until then all I can rely on is what I've read. Poster is now suggesting I made the charge against SF a more serious one....wait for it...in order to downplay it. Couldn't make it up tbh.
Deleted User wrote: » That’s 5 mainstream journalists now who have spoken up in the last week about abuse being received from SF’s online activists. This is a situation entirely of SFs making. You lie down with dogs then you wake up with fleas.
SafeSurfer wrote: » This is what you said “I quoted what Mr Ryan said in his original piece”. That is what you said and that is untrue.
expectationlost wrote: » this current issues isn't really about websites, its about databases.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, that 'members had access'. I assumed that meant all members, If you can prove that wrong, work away. That's an end to the nonsense around this. I've clarified and explained enough.
bobbysands81 wrote: » Really? I thought it was about breaches of GDPR?
Marine Layer wrote: » In other words,you did, in your rush to defend your party,make a mistake,that you are being called on to,but refuse to acknowledge Inadvertently in your rush,yes you did make the charge more serious,as the implication is I can sign up to your party and gain access to personal data Now thats what happens,when we rush replies But don't fret We all do that sometimes
jmcc wrote: » CA was quite sophisticated in what it did. The problem is that the politicians and the public don't understand what it did. It targeted people who were potential influencers rather than targeting everyone in their datasets. Regards...jmcc
Sources have also expressed concern that the real purpose of Sinn Féin’s controversial Abú database is to identify potential ‘Sinn Féin sleepers’.
expectationlost wrote: » https://extra.ie/2021/04/25/news/politics/ff-and-fg-fear-abu-database-is-to-target-sleeper-candidates ignore the spy fiction term sleepers but could sleepers mean influences who could become candidates.
of course once you start running multiple candidates run you run the risk of splitting your vote.
jmcc wrote: » .Yes. FF and FG learned that to their cost in GE 2020. In some cases, they had enough votes for a single candidate for the last seat but other parties running single candidates (Greens for example) won the seat as the two FF or FG candidates fratricided. Regards...jmcc
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » What constituencies did that happen in?
nigeldaniel wrote: » In my opinion, the only reason Abu is not held in the republic is that Belfast is worried that if in the republic the authorities will get to see what is in it. The Belfast brigade would not like that to happen.
maccored wrote: » hilarious to see that this poster doesnt seem to find anything wrong with government parties being able to access data from opposing political parties. In this case mind you, all parties have access to the electoral database anyway so they already know whats on it. Im sure anyone with a democratic bone in their body wouldn't be happy if whatever parties where in government could snoop through a person's /party's / business's digital files at will, regardless of who they are.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Hilarious to see a poster who thinks “the authorities” are the political parties in government. Do you think the minister for communications and justice are CC’d in every correspondence with the DPC?
Fann Linn wrote: » Well. There is precedence. #Leotheleak debunks all confidentiality.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » Can we just agree that nobody actually knows what was i the abu database, what was being used for and what kind in information was going into it?r
maccored wrote: » ah right, so its grand that 'the authorities' get to peek at everything then. yeah .. right
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
