Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[Rds1983]

Spending the afternoon testing a supplier's Gdpr controls at work all afternoon then deciding to log into Villatalk to unwind and seeing a gdpr argument in here. 

Completely agree with Bickster about consent, the most worthless of the lawful basis for processing and nobody should rely on it. 

[Sam-AVFC]

People who don't like blue cheese. It just doesn't make sense.

[mjmooney]

Just now, Sam-AVFC said:

People who don't like blue cheese. It just doesn't make sense.

Nah. As it happens, I love blue cheese, but I can easily see why some people don't. 

The one that baffles me is people who don't like chocolate. 

[bickster]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

They don't own the data on LinkedIn. They are not liable for extracurricular GDPR violations that employees carry out outside the remit of their role. This is fairly recent case law. 

 

No they absolutely are. The zoom meeting is theirs, the purpose of collecting that data was to have the meeting, if they can justify recording it (for the purpose of minutes etc) then the  data should only be retained for as long as it has a purpose. If the data has gone onto Linkedin, then that is a breach, the breach occurs with the company's data, whether they can control linkedin is totally irrelevant. Sorry but you are wrong, the company absolutely is responsible for that data and what happens to it.

I'd be interested to see the case law (from a purely professional point of view, not to win a silly discussion on the interwebs) because I'm completely unaware of it and it's highly likely at this stage and given the last 10 months of the courts being relatively blocked and the GDPR only coming into effect in May 2018 that the case in question predated the new DPA 2018. Given that the ICO work at glacial pace and the steps that have to be gone through to get a case like that to court, it's highly unlikely to be after May 2018.

There was an early case that involved an Inland revenue employee who created spreadsheets at work from data, to take home to work from home (in his spare time), he was prosecuted for the breach but the IR were also liable

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Spending the afternoon testing a supplier's Gdpr controls at work all afternoon then deciding to log into Villatalk to unwind and seeing a gdpr argument in here. 

Completely agree with Bickster about consent, the most worthless of the lawful basis for processing and nobody should rely on it. 

Soz, I'll leave it there

[Davkaus]

This is the case I'm referring to. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ace1e6a-cbf8-42f6-a016-4c303a4fed99

 

Quote

The case involved a disgruntled employee of the supermarket chain Morrisons, who intentionally leaked the payroll data of around 100,000 fellow employees online and to newspapers. Around 9,000 employees sued Morrisons for compensation under the (i) Data Protection Act 1998 (ii) for misuse of private information and (iii) for breach of confidence. The High Court and Court of Appeal held that, although Morrisons was not primarily liable for the data breach, it was vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its employee (see our summaries of those decisions here and here).

Under established law, an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee if that employee is acting ‘in the course of the employment’, even if those acts are unlawful. Whether the acts are sufficiently closely connected with employment to be ‘in the course of the employment’ depends on the facts of the case. In this case, the Court of Appeal had found that they were sufficiently closely connected – the rogue employee’s acts in sending the data to third parties were ‘within the field of activities’ assigned to him by Morrisons, and there was an unbroken thread that linked his work to the unlawful disclosure.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its understanding of the principles of vicarious liability. The disclosure of the data did not form part of the employee’s functions or field of activities, and the close link and unbroken chain of causation would not alone satisfy the test of close connection. Additionally, the motive of the employee was considered to be ‘highly material’.

The Supreme Court considered the question of vicarious liability afresh, applying the general test from the leading cases on whether the disclosure had been sufficiently closely connected with the employee’s authorised acts that it could ‘fairly and properly’ be regarded as done in the course of his employment. The fact that his employment had provided the opportunity for the disclosure was not considered enough to establish the required connection. There was additionally an important distinction between an employee acting to further their employer’s business (even if misguided) and embarking on a ‘frolic of his own’. The Court found it was ‘abundantly clear’ that the employee was pursuing a personal vendetta in disclosing the data. The disclosure of the data was not sufficiently connected with what the employee was authorised to do by Morrisons to find them vicariously liable for the loss suffered by employees.

My reading of that is:

 If the Zoom recording was leaked from company recordings, definitely their problem

However, the employee has made their own copy of either the meeting or images from that meeting, and shared them on external platforms not under control of the employee, without authorisation, not for the benefit of the employer, and not as a part of their role.

 

[Rds1983]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

This is the case I'm referring to. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ace1e6a-cbf8-42f6-a016-4c303a4fed99

 

My reading of that is:

 If the Zoom recording was leaked from company recordings, definitely their problem

However, the employee has made their own copy of either the meeting or images from that meeting, and shared them on external platforms not under control of the employee, without authorisation, not for the benefit of the employer, and not as a part of their role.

 

Thought it might have been this you were referencing. The way I (skim) read the earlier discussion was that the screenshots were being posted on LinkedIn and referencing the employer in some way (i.e. Official accounts or marketing) and as such would be linked to the breaching employees standard/authorised business practices and therefore the employer is liable. 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

This is the case I'm referring to. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ace1e6a-cbf8-42f6-a016-4c303a4fed99

 

My reading of that is:

 If the Zoom recording was leaked from company recordings, definitely their problem

However, the employee has made their own copy of either the meeting or images from that meeting, and shared them on external platforms not under control of the employee, without authorisation, not for the benefit of the employer, and not as a part of their role.

 

Ah, you are refering to the Morrisons Payroll Case. The lack of vicarious liabilty determined by the Supreme Court in April this year, is irrelevant here as the case predates GDPR.

[Rds1983]

Finding my lost bike lock a few days after buying a new one. 

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

Soz, I'll leave it there

I failed, Soz again. Deffo stopped now

[Rds1983]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I failed, Soz again. Deffo stopped now

It's fine. I do actually find it all interesting and that's why I've studied it. 

Morisons was 2014 or 15 I think now that you mentioned it so yeah, higher level of accountability nowadays. 

[Sam-AVFC]

49 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Nah. As it happens, I love blue cheese, but I can easily see why some people don't. 

The one that baffles me is people who don't like chocolate. 

I'm assuming the people who say they don't like chocolate are just lying for effect. 

[Rds1983]

1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm assuming the people who say they don't like chocolate are just lying for effect. 

After drastically changing my eating habits to try and be healthier I'm not a fan of chocolate anymore. I don't mind the really dark stuff (like 90%) but the off the shelf confectionery doesn't do it for me anymore. I don't dislike it but I can happily go without. I might have a random one once every few months but reality never meets expectations. Kinda annoying as I used to have a real sweet tooth and loved chocolate. 

[fightoffyour]

14 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

People who don't like blue cheese. It just doesn't make sense.

I used to not like blue cheese. It may have even been the last food that I didn’t like. But as with olives etc., I saw people eating and loving the stuff and thought “I want to enjoy this too”. So I’d keep eating them every so often, not liking them, until one day...love them.

Actually I have a kind of “castaway” theory, let’s call it, that if you eat something say 5 times you will start to like it, because the brain will just decide “well if this is all we’ve got to eat then I should just send a signal that it’s enjoyable”. For me it definitely worked, and it really pisses me off when someone won’t eat something after they tried it maybe once or had a bad example of a food.

Now I’m also wondering if it works with allergies too, as I had a severe - like vomiting after eating one - mussels allergy. But I love those slimy little bastards, so I kept eating them. I was once at a conference in Brussels and everyone got the special moule frites, which I couldn’t have - but not only did I get something like forgettable chicken, it came with inferior potatoes too! That was the final straw. And so it was to be, on “M-Day”, presented with a mussels special that my fellow diners opted for, I said “**** it”, went all in on a bowl of about 50 of the ****. I was fine, and now I eat them often.

Edited December 3, 2020 by fightoffyour

[Genie]

I was once on a flight in the old days when you’d get a meal as standard.

On the plate with the bread roll was some blue cheese. I’m very unadventurous with cheese but thought I’d give it a go... before I bit into it I glanced across at everyone else’s cheese and realised it wasn’t blue cheese. It was a really, really mouldy piece of cheddar.

I mentioned to the hostess who looked horrified and whisked it away rapidly. 
Could have been a bit of a disaster.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Genie

[Xela]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

On the plate with the bread roll was some blue cheese. I’m very unadventurous with cheese but thought I’d give it a go... before I bit into it I glanced across at everyone else’s cheese and realised it wasn’t blue cheese. It was a really, really mouldy piece of cheddar.

I mentioned to the hostess who looked horrified and whisked it away rapidly. 

I can imagine. That type of mature cheese is for business class only! 

[ender4]

16 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

People who don't like blue cheese. It just doesn't make sense.

well some people only eat mild cheddar, dairylee or babybell (not me).      So blue cheese would taste very strong to them!

[fightoffyour]

28 minutes ago, ender4 said:

well some people only eat mild cheddar, dairylee or babybell (not me).      So blue cheese would taste very strong to them!

Until they'd eaten it for the 5th time and the flavour normalized!

[mjmooney]

3 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

I used to not like blue cheese. It may have even been the last food that I didn’t like. But as with olives etc., I saw people eating and loving the stuff and thought “I want to enjoy this too”. So I’d keep eating them every so often, not liking them, until one day...love them.

Actually I have a kind of “castaway” theory, let’s call it, that if you eat something say 5 times you will start to like it, because the brain will just decide “well if this is all we’ve got to eat then I should just send a signal that it’s enjoyable”. For me it definitely worked, and it really pisses me off when someone won’t eat something after they tried it maybe once or had a bad example of a food.

This is what my wife keeps telling me about spinach. She loves it, I consider it to be the green vomit of Satan. Don't think I'd get it to my mouth before the stink triggered my gag reflex. 

Ain't gonna happen. 

[bickster]

6 hours ago, Genie said:

Could have been a bit of a disaster.

Could have been the cure to many a virus too