Pasoti and Data protection

Tony chowell asks the following on the Pasoti admin board

tonycholwell
Posts: 7485
 

Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:27 pm 

In the light of recent events it is clear significant personal data is held by the site:

1. Do you have a Data Protection Policy?

2. Are you registered with the Information Commisioner?

3. Who is the Data Controller?

4. If the answer to any of the above is "No" are you, as a responsible organisation about to change the situation?

[quote="Chemical Ali"]Tony chowell asks the following on the Pasoti admin board

tonycholwell
Posts: 7485
 

Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:27 pm 

In the light of recent events it is clear significant personal data is held by the site:

1. Do you have a Data Protection Policy?

2. Are you registered with the Information Commisioner?

3. Who is the Data Controller?

4. If the answer to any of the above is "No" are you, as a responsible organisation about to change the situation?

[/quote

1)Yes He is called Ian Newell

2) see above

3) see above

Sounds like he's interested in the mods tightening things up to stop posts etc be reproduced elsewhere. I suspect he knows the answers to all of those questions already. Can see the mods getting all in a quiver about it though. If TC is really concerned I hope he's taken issue with his REAL mates about it, just to warn them not to do it again like. Its all a bit taking hammer to crack the proverbial nut (I might use that as a multi account) the issue is not about Pasoti. Wonder if he's contacted Flickr about the same.

As it is none of those measures will stop hacking.

I hardly know Tony but I suspect he would be in nobody's pocket.

Thought i would look at flickrs terms.


    6. MEMBER CONDUCT

    You acknowledge that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages and other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Yahoo! are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email or otherwise transmit via the Services. Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Services and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You acknowledge that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed or otherwise transmitted via the Services.

You agree to not use the Services to:

upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
harm minors in any way;
impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Yahoo! official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Services;
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorised advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation, except in those areas that are designated for such purpose;
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, damage, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll" faster than other users of the Services are able to type, or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges;
interfere with or disrupt the Services or servers or networks connected to the Services, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Services;
intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable law or regulation including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by any securities exchange;
"stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
extract, collect, process, combine or store personal data about other users.
You acknowledge that Yahoo! has no obligation to monitor Content.

Perhaps they pulled plug on account for breach in termd of service

Quote :

Tony,

I can honestly say that "no" is not an answer to any of your questions.

You will note that the information posted recently on other sites that are screen shots from various pages within PASOTI that came from a private collection of material and not direct from PASOTI. We are discussing changes which will prevent this being the case in future. Please feel free to contact me off-line with any particular concerns that you have.

Mark

Interesting turn of phrase (my italics). I would say it was private pages directly from Pasoti that ended up in a public collection.

I wonder where else those screenshots were posted? Or who they were sent to? Once they had a URL they were as easy to send somewhere as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] would be.

Dougie...I would say the same.Tony Cholwell,who I know very well,is pretty switched on when it comes to Data Protection.

Dougie wrote:

Quote :

Tony,

I can honestly say that "no" is not an answer to any of your questions.

You will note that the information posted recently on other sites that are screen shots from various pages within PASOTI that came from a private collection of material and not direct from PASOTI. We are discussing changes which will prevent this being the case in future. Please feel free to contact me off-line with any particular concerns that you have.

Mark

Interesting turn of phrase (my italics). I would say it was private pages directly from Pasoti that ended up in a public collection.

And any concerns would be better dealt with off-line...

Yes, I bet they would be.

Does anyone have a link to Tony's discussion?

Has anybody asked the pasoti mafia how last week, after telling everyone he was no longer a mod that Newell had access to their Admin threads and was able to copy posts?

Nobody has called them out on what was obviously an outrageous lie? How strange.

I know TonyC well enough. I know what he does for a living, so I think I'm well placed to say that when it comes to things like Data Protection he knows what he's talking about and should be listened to.

The excuse I've seen given for Newell's behaviour is that he wanted to be able to share certain things with his fellow Mods. If that were the case he could have saved these screenshots to his computer's Documents folder and attached them to emails to the pasotimods email address which, presumably, all the Mods on pasoti have access to.

There's no justification for any of the items on Newell's flickr to be there. He, and by extension the whole website, have breached the Data Protection Act in the most flagrant and arrogant manner. The fact that Newell's lies are being bought and perpetuated by other Mods means that they are sinking deeper and deeper into a morass of wrongdoing that they will soon find it difficult to escape from.

Sometimes, when you're in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging and ask for help to get out.

Whatever...

Nobody cares..

Morally bankrupt.

Andy_Symons wrote:

There's no justification for any of the items on Newell's flickr to be there. He, and by extension the whole website, have breached the Data Protection Act in the most flagrant and arrogant manner.

If you are certain there is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act then you MUST report it to the police.

There is also The Computer Misuse Act and the current Operation Tuleta which is being carried out in response the News Of The World hacking scandal but has also uncovered other cases of computer and email hacking such as that by Wycombe Wanderers' owner Steve Hayes who will now stand trial in June for offences completely unconnected to the NotW case.

I was convinced that Dave Floyd of torquayFans.com had hacked my pms on that site a good three years ago before he closed my account with them because I told the membership exactly who "Southampton Gull" was (he couldn't handle that) and there were others with the same suspicions. So the revelation of Newell's request to him to hack into someone's account only goes to further those suspicions.

A trial would be jolly good fun. Imagine everything being made public. The ramifications would last for years and the club, James Brent and everybody downwards would be dragged through the gutter as it happened. Which is why it never will.

merse wrote:

I was convinced that Dave Floyd of torquayFans.com had hacked my pms on that site a good three years ago before he closed my account with them because I told the membership exactly who "Southampton Gull" was (he couldn't handle that) and there were others with the same suspicions. So the revelation of Newell's request to him to hack into someone's account only goes to further those suspicions.

I would be very interested to have any info on "Southampton Gull" that you might have. If you do not want to do it publicaly, please PM me.

merse wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

There's no justification for any of the items on Newell's flickr to be there. He, and by extension the whole website, have breached the Data Protection Act in the most flagrant and arrogant manner.

If you are certain there is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act then you MUST report it to the police.

There is also The Computer Misuse Act and the current Operation Tuleta which is being carried out in response the News Of The World hacking scandal but has also uncovered other cases of computer and email hacking such as that by Wycombe Wanderers' owner Steve Hayes who will now stand trial in June for offences completely unconnected to the NotW case.

I was convinced that Dave Floyd of torquayFans.com had hacked my pms on that site a good three years ago before he closed my account with them because I told the membership exactly who "Southampton Gull" was (he couldn't handle that) and there were others with the same suspicions. So the revelation of Newell's request to him to hack into someone's account only goes to further those suspicions.

SG, aka Dave Floyd is denying being the SG referred to (he would, wouldn't he) and posted on Exeweb last night a muted defence of his big buddy Newell. Newell set up a GGG (greens, gulls and greeks)meeting group which he attends when he works in Southampton. Newell, Floyd and a couple of weak minded City fans attend to supposedly speak about all things football.

When they come back from each meeting Newell and Floyd use Exeweb to further slur key Exewebbers who sussed Newell years ago. These are nasty people. Slurs included homophobic references to some and allegations of affairs for others, all in attempt to rid Exeweb of those that would stand up to them. Newell has tried the same here and on Pasoti. Pasoti mods appear too weak to do anything. ATD is different. Newell has done a major disservice to Argyle on Exeweb. His bile permeated Exeweb over many years and he constantly soured relations between both sets of fans. We regarded every Argyle fan as a Newell. Gradually though, with the likes of Tringy, Cerbera, General Zod, Drake, Jock and even Cobi, also many others relations are much better and improving...the vile comments between both sets of fans are disappearing.

When Tringy first came onto Exeweb he didn't rant about Newell he simply raised a few questions and the more intelligent on there understood him to be an honest person who had suffered the same slurs and bullying attempts by Newell and Co. Now Exeweb view Newell as a joke, however with every bully type he needs to be contained. He has not been banned and he posts very infrequently now. ATD does not ban a City fan simply for being a City fan, Exeweb will not ban any Argyle fan and they can post on any forum, Pasoti ban any free thinking individual. I was banned on Pasoti for posting off "Terraces" and being a "City fan"....says it all really

Interestingly I asked on Exeweb what the extent of Southampton Gull's interaction was with Ian Newell and if he was indeed the SG who planted a virus in Rickler's e-mail account on Newell's request and the post has been removed. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Greenjock wrote:

Interestingly I asked on Exeweb what the extent of Southampton Gull's interaction was with Ian Newell and if he was indeed the SG who planted a virus in Rickler's e-mail account on Newell's request and the post has been removed. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

SG on Exeweb is another of Porky's poodles. Quite a coincidence isn't it ?

Quite interesting & very alarming reading Red Star's post. It reminded me of the organized football hooliganism of the 70's & 80's.

Obviously hooliganism as we knew it then is largely a thing of the past, but could it be that with the emergence & reliance on the internet it has simply moved online & now takes a less physical form ?

Sounds like there are some very nasty people around, people that any right thinking fans wouldn't want within a hundred miles of their club.

Ffarquhar wrote:

Quite interesting & very alarming reading Red Star's post. It reminded me of the organized football hooliganism of the 70's & 80's.
Obviously hooliganism as we knew it then is largely a thing of the past, but could it be that with the emergence & reliance on the internet it has simply moved online & now takes a less physical form ?
Sounds like there are some very nasty people around, people that any right thinking fans wouldn't want within a hundred miles of their club.

................and THAT I would say sums SG up to a tee. Not an organiser of violence but a grown man who just loves swaggering around to the awe of teenagers and adolescents of limited intelligence.

merse wrote:

Ffarquhar wrote:

Quite interesting & very alarming reading Red Star's post. It reminded me of the organized football hooliganism of the 70's & 80's.
Obviously hooliganism as we knew it then is largely a thing of the past, but could it be that with the emergence & reliance on the internet it has simply moved online & now takes a less physical form ?
Sounds like there are some very nasty people around, people that any right thinking fans wouldn't want within a hundred miles of their club.

................and THAT I would say sums SG up to a tee. Not an organiser of violence but a grown man who just loves swaggering around to the awe of teenagers and adolescents of limited intelligence.

Your description Merse, also matches exactly that of someone else who is mentioned here often.

As a matter of interest Ffarquhar ~ Southampton Gull is called Dave Floyd and he originates from Dartmouth where you live!

Not someone I know of Merse. Most here are Londoners

My wife is a Dartmouth original and I've just this second asked her if she has heard of a Dave Floyd. She hasn't so I guess you may be right about the origins. I was in Dartmouth just over a week ago and she didn't see anyone in the town she recognised when we had a stroll around. I guess most Dartmothians confine themselves to Townstal these days to keep out of the way of the invaders. My brother-in-law goes by the name of Fritz so if you are a local you must know him Ffarquhar.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

My wife is a Dartmouth original and I've just this second asked her if she has heard of a Dave Floyd.

His father was called Mike Floyd and played football for Dartmouth YMRC

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

My wife is a Dartmouth original and I've just this second asked her if she has heard of a Dave Floyd. She hasn't so I guess you may be right about the origins. I was in Dartmouth just over a week ago and she didn't see anyone in the town she recognised when we had a stroll around. I guess most Dartmothians confine themselves to Townstal these days to keep out of the way of the invaders. My brother-in-law goes by the name of Fritz so if you are a local you must know him Ffarquhar.

Thanks Bergerac