Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

12357

Comments

  • #122
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Frynge wrote: »
    Because it is technically not data for a start. It is at best an opinion and possibly could be considered slander if it was communicated directly to someone else while identifying them, and could be proved to be false.

    This is meaningless whataboutery. Either it's true, in which case it is a data protection breach, or it's false, in which case it's defamation. The person was identified, the specific details of their contract were detailed; there's no defence of honest opinion that I can see here, and no claim that the information, if true, does not constitute data.


  • #123
    Frynge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Frynge


    desertcircus wrote: »
    This is meaningless whataboutery. Either it's true, in which case it is a data protection breach, or it's false, in which case it's defamation. The person was identified, the specific details of their contract were detailed; there's no defence of honest opinion that I can see here, and no claim that the information, if true, does not constitute data.

    "This bride signed a contract on the 13th of June 2015. She is having a meal and a wedding here at the castle. Her total price for 52 guests is 2,196. This is a four-hour hire with the use of the Lundie Hall for a drinks reception. The original down payment was 1,096. We waived it to 700 because she could not afford the down payment."

    Nothing in that statement could have been used to identify the bride other than the fact it was said to her on a public forum.


  • #124
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Saying a specific person got a reduction because she couldn't afford the full price is a data protection breach. I'm at a loss as to how you think this doesn't fall under data protection legislation.

    because getting a reduction means nothing, stating you gave a reduction means nothing, giving contract details, thats a breach. Can you see the difference? one is a statement of events, the other is data. I would however suggest that when it comes to data protection, theres a lot of interpretations flying around. My own bank refused to give me information about my own account once!

    It could be slander or breach of contract but thats a whole different area.

    I disagree with Frynge purely on the basis that the information was released in a manner that allowed the bride be identified ie directed at her and in reply to her.

    as a complete aside, did the price include a meal? if not its a bit pricey, if it does, its a good price


  • #125
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Frynge wrote: »
    "This bride signed a contract on the 13th of June 2015. She is having a meal and a wedding here at the castle. Her total price for 52 guests is 2,196. This is a four-hour hire with the use of the Lundie Hall for a drinks reception. The original down payment was 1,096. We waived it to 700 because she could not afford the down payment."

    Nothing in that statement could have been used to identify the bride other than the fact it was said to her on a public forum.

    Well, yes, because that's all that was needed. It's perfectly clear who the post is referring to. You don't get to claim you haven't identified the person unless you said their full legal name: the author has identified the person they're referring to perfectly clearly. Ask the Sun if pixellating a photo of Ashley Cole back in 2006 was enough to stop them being ordered to pay damages to him and publish a formal apology.


  • #126
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    esforum wrote: »
    because getting a reduction means nothing, stating you gave a reduction means nothing, giving contract details, thats a breach. Can you see the difference?

    It could be slander or breach of contract but thats a whole different area

    The chances of a judge seeing it this way are zero. The company has data on a customer, specifically the details of her contract. More specifically, the fact that she paid a lesser deposit is a highly relevant item of data. Disclosing that without permission is a data protection breach, full stop. This is data relating to a living individual who can be identified. Leaking it is a breach.

    You seem to have the explanatory burden the wrong way around. This is personal data, which has been published without the permission of the subject. You get to explain how it's not a breach, not just assert it repeatedly. Why does this information not count as personal data?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Frynge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Frynge


    But a person who engages in an online debate or discussion using their real name loses the protection given by the data protection act.


    If such a discussion had happened on boards between people using the PM function, and then the venue manager posted what she posted using the brides name then i would concide that it was a data protection issue.


  • #128
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Frynge wrote: »
    But a person who engages in an online debate or discussion using their real name loses the protection given by the data protection act.


    If such a discussion had happened on boards between people using the PM function, and then the venue manager posted what she posted using the brides name then i would concide that it was a data protection issue.

    Do you have any source for this claim? That would be an absolutely insane legal situation. By that logic, if someone were to post on Facebook saying that their internet service provider was frustratingly slow, it would be no breach of data protection law if the ISP were to respond by publishing the person's full browser history.


  • #129
    Frynge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Frynge


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Do you have any source for this claim? That would be an absolutely insane legal situation. By that logic, if someone were to post on Facebook saying that their internet service provider was frustratingly slow, it would be no breach of data protection law if the ISP were to respond by publishing the person's full browser history.

    That is clearly not the same. Just as using a large company in comparison to a small family business also is not a fair comparison. But using your example of an ISP it would be similare to a customer giving out to them on fb for slow internet for the ISP to state that they were unwilling to get anything above the basic package and at that they received a discount.

    Now I can not see any ISP or anysuch company engage in such a conversation online on a public forum. Not because it would be data protection issues but quite simple they just are not as stupid as the venue manager.


  • #130
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Frynge wrote: »
    That is clearly not the same. Just as using a large company in comparison to a small family business also is not a fair comparison. But using your example of an ISP it would be similare to a customer giving out to them on fb for slow internet for the ISP to state that they were unwilling to get anything above the basic package and at that they received a discount.

    Now I can not see any ISP or anysuch company engage in such a conversation online on a public forum. Not because it would be data protection issues but quite simple they just are not as stupid as the venue manager.

    That would be a data protection breach too! Both of those things are information regarding an identifiable customer. One of them is a less spectacular breach, but they're both breaches of information which should not be disclosed outside of the company/customer relationship.

    Why do you think the companies who operate on Boards never mention any personal details on threads and immediately ask people to PM them with their information?

    And can you please give an explanation for why you think the customer information leaked by the company doesn't count as personal data? You can dismiss all you want, but information regarding the specifics of the contract - especially the details of a lesser deposit - is personal data, and it's up to you to explain how it doesn't count, instead of just saying so.


  • #131
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    desertcircus wrote: »
    And can you please give an explanation for why you think the customer information leaked by the company doesn't count as personal data?

    I asked the same question earlier in the thread
    Frynge wrote: »
    I really wouldn't have the required knowledge or expertise but that would be my take on things and I may be wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Frynge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Frynge


    Graham wrote: »
    I asked the same question earlier in the thread

    Yes. All this is just my opinion.


  • #133
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    esforum wrote: »
    again, saying someone is poor or got a reduction is not a breach of data protection. Read the act



    Have I read this thread? Have you read the post you are replying to? I quote myself:



    I didnt say there was no breach, I said posting that they are poor or got an amendment is not a breach.

    Giving out details of a confidential contract online, where the 2nd party is easily identifiable is a breach of the data protection act.


  • #134
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Why do you think the companies who operate on Boards never mention any personal details on threads and immediately ask people to PM them with their information?

    For account security, zero to do with data protection alltough they tend to claim that, you can in fact NOT breach data protection by disclosing information about yourself and neither are you a data controller. Houshold accounts, finances and managing is very explicity excluded from data protection act
    desertcircus wrote: »
    The chances of a judge seeing it this way are zero. The company has data on a customer, specifically the details of her contract. More specifically, the fact that she paid a lesser deposit is a highly relevant item of data. Disclosing that without permission is a data protection breach, full stop. This is data relating to a living individual who can be identified. Leaking it is a breach.

    You seem to have the explanatory burden the wrong way around. This is personal data, which has been published without the permission of the subject. You get to explain how it's not a breach, not just assert it repeatedly. Why does this information not count as personal data?


    I didnt make the original statement about data protection so no burden lies with me and you have not sourced one single item to back your arguement, I have sourced 2. You also cannot backup your claim about a judge. Its all your personal opinion.

    If you refuse to accept them or what constitutes 'personal data', theres nothing I can do about that other than to suggest we move on and get back on topic.


  • #135
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Frynge wrote: »
    Yes. All this is just my opinion.

    Your opinion appears to be based on a flawed understanding of what constitutes personal data/PII/personally identifiable information.
    "personal data" means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;

    A similar definition is contained in the
    EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC)
    :
    "personal data" shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('Data Subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.

    The definition is – deliberately - a very broad one. In principle, it covers any information that relates to an identifiable, living individual. However, it needs to be borne in mind that data may become personal from information that could likely come into the possession of a data controller.


  • #136
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Giving out details of a confidential contract online, where the 2nd party is easily identifiable is a breach of the data protection act.

    You are dodging now because you misread my comment. I agreed at the very start that this was indeed a breach as I quoted. Read the post, and read the part I quoted and then read again the part I stated was not a breach.

    I said calling someone poor is not a breach. Thats what I said, nothing more.


  • #137
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    esforum wrote: »
    I said calling someone poor is not a breach. Thats what I said, nothing more.

    What makes you think that's not a breach?
    the concept of personal data includes any sort of statements about a person. It covers "objective" information, such as the presence of a certain substance in one's blood. It also includes "subjective" information, opinions or assessments. This latter sort of statements make up a considerable share of personal data processing in sectors such as banking, for the assessment of the reliability of borrowers ("Titius is a reliable borrower"), in insurance ("Titius is not expected to die soon") or in employment ("Titius is a good worker and merits promotion").
    For information to be 'personal data', it is not necessary that it be true or proven. In fact, data protection rules already envisage the possibility that information is incorrect and provide for a right of the data subject to access that information and to challenge it through appropriate remedies5-
    Article 29 - DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY


  • #138
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    Graham wrote: »
    What makes you think that's not a breach?


    Article 29 - DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY

    You realise the working party has no jurisdiction at all? Is advisory only and makes no laws either in Ireland or any other EU country?

    means jack **** until it becomes law, now quote the actual laws that govern the UK


  • #139
    Amoureux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Amoureux


    When I saw the length of this thread I got excited, thought it was going to be the new 'Cake Stand Mixer' saga or 'No Food at the Reception' debacle, but it's just a data protection breach debate.
    Oh well, it's only the beginning of wedding season.


  • #140
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    esforum wrote: »
    You realise the working party has no jurisdiction at all? Is advisory only and makes no laws either in Ireland or any other EU country?

    means jack **** until it becomes law, now quote the actual laws that govern the UK

    From the UK Information Commissioners Office, feel free to find the specific legislation if you have reason to doubt.
    Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –

    (a) from those data, or

    (b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

    and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual
    https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-definitions/

    Suffice to say there were at least one, probably multiple, breaches of data protection legislation.


  • #141
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    AND Graham AND

    it can only be WITH A or B, not standalone

    so again I repeat, I agree that what was said was a breach, but stating someone is poor is on its own, not.

    actually, its all off topic, lets move on


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    esforum wrote: »
    AND Graham AND

    it can only be WITH A or B, not standalone

    so again I repeat, I agree that what was said was a breach, but stating someone is poor is on its own, not.

    actually, its all off topic, lets move on

    The company identified the customer. The condition has been satisfied. It's a data breach.


  • #143
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    esforum wrote: »
    AND Graham AND

    it can only be WITH A or B, not standalone

    Perhaps a diagram would help.

    The Information Commissioner’s guidance provides a helpful flow diagram, incorporating eight questions to help identify whether data relates to an individual or not. Like the Article 29 Working Party paper, the requirements are alternatives, so that answering "yes" to any of the questions indicates that the data concerned is personal:

    TABLE031008.gif
    http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1403Newsletter/PublicationIssue20081001/Pages/PublicationIssueItem3513.aspx


  • #144
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    desertcircus wrote: »
    The company identified the customer. The condition has been satisfied. It's a data breach.

    oh my dear god in heaven, you people are not listening to me at all. Im not repeating myself again
    esforum wrote: »
    I dont think a personally held view that someone is 'poor' is personal data.
    esforum wrote: »
    Other stuff put up is definately a breach not too mention terrible unprofessional.

    Graham, why are you fixated with the working group?


  • #145
    Graham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Graham


    esforum wrote: »
    Graham, why are you fixated with the working group?

    The diagram is from the UK information commissioners office and defines in 8 clear steps what represents personal data. I would offer to draw a map but the ICO have already provided the one above.


  • #146
    Toots
    Business & Finance Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 17,009 Mod ✭✭✭✭Toots


    OK guys, this is the Weddings forum, not Legal Discussion. If ye want to debate what does or doesn't constitute a breach of the relevant Data Protection Act, please use the Legal Discussion Forum, and do not discuss it further on this thread.


  • #147
    fima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 338 ✭✭fima


    They killed it.


  • #148
    LynnGrace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭LynnGrace


    http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2609623-hotel-worker-destroys-business-in-fb-rant

    I have only read the first page or so, of this thread ^^ ; it seems she was home alone, when all of this kicked off.


  • #149
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    fima wrote: »
    They killed it.

    I apologise for my part in the stupidity

    in regards the Castle. Is it correct that the bride weas refusing to pay? Hard to denf her on that point, shes an adult and signed a contract


  • #150
    Dubl07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Dubl07


    esforum wrote: »
    I apologise for my part in the stupidity

    in regards the Castle. Is it correct that the bride weas refusing to pay? Hard to denf her on that point, shes an adult and signed a contract

    The bride hasn't said she won't pay in any of the posts I've seen. She merely queried if payment 90 days in advance and full price for children is the norm. In fact, both bride and groom have stated that they intend to pay full whack in their eventual venue, despite offers to host them free of charge.
    Let's see if this spreads as far and wide as other posts about our wedding issues. We are very grateful for all the messages of support and many offers of free or discounted rates. We may investigate some of the alternate venue options but can assure you we shall be paying the going rate for the venue . We are not the kind of people who would feel comfortable profiting from this. We hope this doesn't come across as ungrateful and we apologise to anyone who has messaged us and not received a reply . There has been too many to keep up with thank you all so very much for support


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    in the facebook post its suggested there was some haggling over payment, thats why I asked

    large-194515-image1.jpg


Advertisement
Advertisement