CRoW Ballot ~ Corruption ?

[Bottlebank]

Its called campaigning, get over it. Not quite as bad as the coalition government taken teachers pensions out of the Pensions spending figure and grouping it in with welfare to justify spending cuts.

And no doubt a direct result of the BCA's daft assumption that because there's been a lot of discussion on here everyone else knows what's been going on, which a lot of us who do post on here realise is nonsense, and as a result they've dropped a ballot with no additional information on a lot of unsuspecting people who haven't a clue what's been happening.

 

[Alex]

I feel left out having not received it, I guess they thought it would be rather pointless sending it to me!

 

[Peter Burgess]

I have a number of people ask me what on earth it's all about in the past week. They knew nothing about it, even though I circulated an email canvassing for views in advance of the CCC deliberations a few weeks ago.

 

[droid]

'Corruption' is a bit drama-queenish.

I'm no internet expert, but if I wanted to obtain a bunch of e-mither addresses I doubt it'd take long to do it. Has all the hallmarks of someone on a wind-up mission that's worked rather well!.

It wasn't me though. I have better things to do with my time......

 

[bograt]

The document in question carries this tag line;

"The CSCC would be grateful if you could distribute the attached document to your members which puts the case for a NO vote. No doubt you will receive a similar request from the pro camp before long.

Regards
Frank Tully
CSCC Secretary."

It was posted by *****@*****

This implies that it was sent at the behest of the CSCC, any of their officers care to comment on the use and publication of a personal address list and the issuing of Spam??

I don't know where the list came from but I do know of one caving recipient who is not a member of either a club or BCA, so doe's not carry a vote anyway, his personal e-mail address is now there for anyone to see (and use!), I suspect privacy laws could have been contravened using the CSCC's name.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

I hope the CSCC's database of email addresses is registered with the Information Commissioner's Office. Perhaps someone who received the email would like to inquire.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information

https://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/registration

 

[Peter Burgess]

'Corruption' is a bit drama-queenish.

Corruption is normally a word used in connection with making money, or gaining influence and power, through underhand and illegal means. I am not convinced either apply here.

I wonder what the votes are worth? (joke).

 

[Cookie]

As a CSCC Officer I'll reply.

The text of the email was:

Dear BCA Member,

BCA is currently conducting a poll of its members as to whether to
campaign for CRoW applying to caves or not. The poll will include your
members.

BCA have not included any campaigning information with the ballot papers
upon which your members can make an informed decision.

The CSCC would be grateful if you could distribute the attached document
to your members which puts the case for a NO vote. No doubt you will
receive a similar request from the pro camp before long.

Regards
Frank Tully
CSCC Secretary.

A copy of the attached document referred to is at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17403.0

The Secretary was doing as he was mandated to do by the previous CSCC meeting which was to distribute the CSCC's view to the BCA member Clubs so that they could pass it on to their members.

We are in the middle of a campaign and CSCC are campaigning. This is no different to the post you receive from the political parties around election times.

The mailing list was constructed from CSCC's own members and the email addresses publicly available on the Club's own website.

That email list should not have been broadcast to all recipients.  It was a genuine mistake caused by not understanding the difference between CC and BCC.

On behalf of CSCC I wish to offer an unreserved apology to those effected.  It should not have happened and we will do our best to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[al]

This is no different to the post you receive from the political parties around election times.

But some of it must be true, surely?

 

[Bottlebank]

That email list should not have been broadcast to all recipients.  It was a genuine mistake caused by not understanding the difference between CC and BCC.

On behalf of CSCC I wish to offer an unreserved apology to those effected.  It should not have happened and we will do our best to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Understandable, I've been using email heavily for twenty odd years and always wondered what bcc is for.

 

[jasonbirder]

In storing and handling this list of email addresses/personal details the CSCC will be considered a "data controller" for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. Data controllers are obliged to handle personal data in accordance with the data-protection principles set out in Section One of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
They would not be entitled to disclose an individual's email address to third parties without their consent. It seems unlikely that most recipients of this campaign literature would have consented to their email addresses being disclosed to the other recipients of the email.
Quite apart from the disclosure of the email address itself, displaying it to other recipients reveals that the individual has had some dealing with the organisation in the past. Which given the CSCCs behaviour may, at the very least be considered embarrassing to the individual concerned 
So it sounds to me that the CSCC has breached the first data-protection principle under the DPA by displaying all email addresses.
Individuals can complain to the information commissioner who has power to issue enforcement notices, or they may seek compensation under section 13 of the DPA for any contravention of the DPA which causes them damage.

 

[Cookie]

As an expert Jason I could do with your advice.

Do you think the recipients would welcome an apology email or do you think they would report the CSCC to the ICO for more of the same?

 

[Bottlebank]

In storing and handling this list of email addresses/personal details the CSCC will be considered a "data controller" for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. Data controllers are obliged to handle personal data in accordance with the data-protection principles set out in Section One of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
They would not be entitled to disclose an individual's email address to third parties without their consent. It seems unlikely that most recipients of this campaign literature would have consented to their email addresses being disclosed to the other recipients of the email.
Quite apart from the disclosure of the email address itself, displaying it to other recipients reveals that the individual has had some dealing with the organisation in the past. Which given the CSCCs behaviour may, at the very least be considered embarrassing to the individual concerned 
So it sounds to me that the CSCC has breached the first data-protection principle under the DPA by displaying all email addresses.
Individuals can complain to the information commissioner who has power to issue enforcement notices, or they may seek compensation under section 13 of the DPA for any contravention of the DPA which causes them damage.

No wonder people are reluctant to take on roles in caving organisations. [swear words deleted voluntarily to avoid upsetting the mods]

Cookie has already issued an unreserved apology on behalf of CSCC for revealing the email addresses. What more would you like? Cash compensation for pressing delete? Grow up.

The email represents the views of one organisation that people may wish to take into account when considering how to vote, rather than bitching on here why don't you simply pass it on to the rest of the Orpheus so they have at least something to consider before voting?

Sadly after that sort of comment I suspect you won't get many more views sent for consideration, which is a shame in a referendum which has obviously failed to reach a large number of eligible voters.

My reply has crossed with Cookies, good question Dave!

 

[droid]

Looks like it was a simple mistake.

No malice involved....except for Jasonbirders' characteristically provocative contribution.
I echo Tony's comment: grow up.

Hunkers down for 'pot calling kettle mucky-a**e comment fron a couple of usual suspects.

 

[bograt]

I intentionally showed the e-mail address of the perpetrator (above) so those whose feel offended could e-mail him directly and demand to be removed from his spam list.

 

[Badlad]

[admin]Advance notice. To ALL forum users.


People from both sides of the argument are passionate about access issues. In the past, posting on this subject has descended into baiting, bullying and bickering. We have been told time and time again that this puts people off UKcaving. I am sure forum users would rather be informed, hear others' opinions and be entertained. So, please at all times, keep discussion civil. Thank you in advance.[/admin]

 

[paul]

[gmod]A question has been asked and a reasonable answer has been given together with an apology. I can see no reason to continue discussing the subject so let's consider the matter closed.[/gmod]

 

[paul]

[gmod]This Topic was specifically regarding email addresses in an email. If you want to talk about something else START A NEW THREAD! As I have already said, the matter is now closed. Any more replies and this thread will be locked.[/gmod]

 

[cap n chris]

[mod]Some bickers removed. Thread locked for time being.[/mod]