Idiots that don’t understand GDPR

[Gavin]

But shirley if you put your CV online with contact details you in fact want to be contacted? If he had e-mailed you with a £300k PA job would you reply saying get to Falkirk?

[Rich B]

But shirley if you put your CV online with contact details you in fact want to be contacted? If he had e-mailed you with a £300k PA job would you reply saying get to Falkirk?

Falkirk would be too long a commute for me, and I’m not taking a pay cut.

[Simon]

But shirley if you put your CV online with contact details you in fact want to be contacted? If he had e-mailed you with a £300k PA job would you reply saying get to Falkirk?

Falkirk would be too long a commute for me, and I’m not taking a pay cut.

I didn't 'put my cv online' Gavin... It was with just one agency to pursue a particular opportunity that I was targeted for. I wasn't even in the market for a change of role, but one of our up-start competitors had been going after several of our guys to build their new EMEA team and I was contacted about that role. It didn't work out (US west coast tech startup if you know the issues that can bring) and I had no further communication with the agency in question. That agency was not it-talent.co.uk, so I'm not quite sure how they got my details from them.

[dinny_g]

Your first port of call is the agency you registered interest in a Job with to try to understand why it ended up with it-talent

[jamcg]

I’ve just had to do some GDPR training in my capacity as a scout leader. Just received the minutes and everyone’s email addresses are in the cc field

[dinny_g]

this is an interesting development...

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/morri ... of-appeal/

[NotoriousREV]

Yeah, it’s a baffling one. The best you can do as a company is ensure that you only give appropriate access to data and you use DLP software to watch for it leaving the network but there are still ways for an employee with appropriate access to go rogue. On the face of it, Morrison’s don’t appear to have been particularly negligent.

[Jobbo]

You'd think Morrisons would be well aware of the possibility that they are vicariously liable for the acts of an employee, even criminal acts. They went all the way to the Supreme Court over a very similar principle (entirely different facts, dating back to 2008) and lost in 2016: https://swarb.co.uk/mohamud-v-wm-morris ... -mar-2016/ - have a look at the Bailii Summary link for a concise precis of the facts and outcome or the other Bailii link for the full judgment.

[NotoriousREV]

But the two situations aren’t all that similar. Being attacked by a Morrison’s employee, whilst in Morrison’s, during that employees shift is one thing, but would you sue Morrison’s if one of their employees stole a can of peas, got sacked and then some time later threw the can of peas at your head?

[Jobbo]

If the can of peas was a very personal can of peas specific to Morrisons, which the employee could only have acquired through his employment, then yes.

Legally the two scenarios are almost identical. It’s about vicarious liability for an employee’s actions which themselves amount to criminal conduct.

[NotoriousREV]

If the can of peas was a very personal can of peas specific to Morrisons, which the employee could only have acquired through his employment, then yes.

Legally the two scenarios are almost identical. It’s about vicarious liability for an employee’s actions which themselves amount to criminal conduct.

Even if he wasn’t an employee when he published those details?

I could understand it if those were details he shouldn’t have had as part of his role, that’s definitely negligent of Morrison’s (which may well be the case, but I haven’t looked at the actual case notes, I’ve only read the reporting).

Meh, the law’s an ass, as usual.

[Jobbo]

I don't need to explain the reason for the decision to you; the Court of Appeal has already done that: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2339.html

However, he appears to have been an employee at the time he shared the database of personal details; and why should it make any difference if he shared it the day after termination of his employment? That information was in his possession solely as a consequence of his employment.

The law is an ass? No, idiots who don't understand it are asses

[Maurice]

I don't need to explain the reason for the decision to you; the Court of Appeal has already done that: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2339.html

However, he appears to have been an employee at the time he shared the database of personal details; and why should it make any difference if he shared it the day after termination of his employment? That information was in his possession solely as a consequence of his employment.

The law is an ass? No, idiots who don't understand it are asses

Data protectiown3d.

[JLv3.0]

Court of Appeal decisiowned.

[Rich B]