News1 min ago
Goodness Me I'm With Cob Again....
24 Answers
Surely this falls under GDPR rules? It's hardly Stalanist, any company does this with disgruntled employees.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You're querying the Daily Mail, YMB? There's a turn-up for the book!
Why would anyone who resigns from an organisation even expect to go on having access to that organisation's information banks?
As I understand it, people who hold such knowledge - but who are being sacked - are routinely escorted from the premises without further ado. Why would a willing leaver have better treatment?
Why would anyone who resigns from an organisation even expect to go on having access to that organisation's information banks?
As I understand it, people who hold such knowledge - but who are being sacked - are routinely escorted from the premises without further ado. Why would a willing leaver have better treatment?
"Yesterday, Labour sources claimed that one of the party’s breakaway MPs had tried to access its supporters’ data, prompting it to shut down its key canvassing software."
So if the MP broke away, then they weren't part of the party anymore? So not only were they trying to steal data from a database, but the database they were trying to steal from was a government official one, one of which they were not a part of. Is this treason?
So if the MP broke away, then they weren't part of the party anymore? So not only were they trying to steal data from a database, but the database they were trying to steal from was a government official one, one of which they were not a part of. Is this treason?
The problem is Ick, more are shouting about going so they have 'traitors' in their midst.
Not only do Labour have the responsibility of taking care of their data but in addition it is darned careless to allow disgruntled employees to wonder off with your intellectual property. I would hope the Tories have done the same.
I am sure if anyone really needs access then they can get it. Really it should be like that anyway - using principal of least privilege.
"I wonder how sensitive the information is that Labour keeps on its databases?"
It would be nice to think they hold a file on everyone, however I suspect it is fairly limited.
Not only do Labour have the responsibility of taking care of their data but in addition it is darned careless to allow disgruntled employees to wonder off with your intellectual property. I would hope the Tories have done the same.
I am sure if anyone really needs access then they can get it. Really it should be like that anyway - using principal of least privilege.
"I wonder how sensitive the information is that Labour keeps on its databases?"
It would be nice to think they hold a file on everyone, however I suspect it is fairly limited.
// I wonder how sensitive the information is that Labour keeps on its databases?//
comes in two flavours - personal ( sensitive ) and not personal.
Should only be used for the purpose for which it was submitted - so if it is the defectors collection they cant really block it
BUT
does no one in this world ( xc me) not keep back ups?
It is commonplace for fired employees to try to wipe their work space computer ....
comes in two flavours - personal ( sensitive ) and not personal.
Should only be used for the purpose for which it was submitted - so if it is the defectors collection they cant really block it
BUT
does no one in this world ( xc me) not keep back ups?
It is commonplace for fired employees to try to wipe their work space computer ....
"can someone tell me what / using principal[sic[ of least privilege. / means please ? "
Certainly. It means you only give the least access to someone. So if they work in Manchester then you might give them access to people in that area, not the whole country. You might only give it to the person in charge of mailing but not the person that does the artwork. That sort of thing.
Certainly. It means you only give the least access to someone. So if they work in Manchester then you might give them access to people in that area, not the whole country. You might only give it to the person in charge of mailing but not the person that does the artwork. That sort of thing.
Blocking non members from the party’s website is entirely reasonable and good practice.
Setting up is petitions is not acceptable and illegal. And will be counter productive. Any MP attracting a lot of signatures calling for them to give up their seat, will be less inclinded to.
And Corbyn should be careful what he wishes for. To lose just one Labour seat in a by-election at this would be very damaging.
Setting up is petitions is not acceptable and illegal. And will be counter productive. Any MP attracting a lot of signatures calling for them to give up their seat, will be less inclinded to.
And Corbyn should be careful what he wishes for. To lose just one Labour seat in a by-election at this would be very damaging.
Fair enough. If they're resigned from the Labour party, why should they have access to it's data?
Naomi // I can understand them restricting access to data, but it could have been done quietly just as a matter of course. //
It probably was, but obviously the Mail is hostile to Corbyn and is most likely blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
Naomi // I can understand them restricting access to data, but it could have been done quietly just as a matter of course. //
It probably was, but obviously the Mail is hostile to Corbyn and is most likely blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.