Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Techie1

Register: 30,000 London gun owners hit by Met Police 'data breach'

12 posts in this topic


7 hours ago, Techie1 said:

London gun owners are asking questions of the Metropolitan Police after the force seemingly handed the addresses of 30,000 firearm and shotgun owners to a direct mail marketing agency for a commercial firm's advertising campaign.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/19/met_police_30000_gun_owner_data_breach/ 

 

that's outrageous , so someone is walking about with the addresses of where all the guns in London are kept. How could that go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, george b said:

that's outrageous , so someone is walking about with the addresses of where all the guns in London are kept. How could that go wrong?

No. A direct marketing company in Leeds has the addresses.

The leaflet was in an envelope so I would assume that not every postie in the greater London area now has knowledge of where the capital's shooters are.

Let's try and keep some perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Indiana Jones said:

No. A direct marketing company in Leeds has the addresses.

The leaflet was in an envelope so I would assume that not every postie in the greater London area now has knowledge of where the capital's shooters are.

Let's try and keep some perspective.

so , if the police cant keep confidential info confidential, you think a marketing company in Leeds will. Tell me why are they more likely to comply with the data protection act than the police.

I'm betting the police took payment to sell protected details,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, george b said:

so , if the police cant keep confidential info confidential, you think a marketing company in Leeds will. Tell me why are they more likely to comply with the data protection act than the police.

I'm betting the police took payment to sell protected details,

Straw man. It wasn't a data breach - there was no 'leak', it was a deliberate sending out of what is arguably targetted crime prevention advice.

If we were comparing like for like, then there's no reason to think that a Leeds marketing company should be any more or less likely to keep data secure than the Met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Indiana Jones said:

Straw man. It wasn't a data breach - there was no 'leak', it was a deliberate sending out of what is arguably targetted crime prevention advice.

If we were comparing like for like, then there's no reason to think that a Leeds marketing company should be any more or less likely to keep data secure than the Met.

no one said it wasn't deliberate , and most likely for money. How does that make it better.?

why do you this think the police selling confidential information isn't a breach of the DPA.

well if they are just as likely to sell on the data as the met, then we are in trouble, as the met have indeed sold it

 

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, george b said:

no one said it wasn't deliberate , and most likely for money.

Supposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Indiana Jones said:

Supposition.

maybe but its hard to know what's worse, them selling confidential information, or just giving it away to someone who asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I might progress a third case for you - that it was neither sold, nor just given away, but was sent to them as part of an agreement entered into. As opposed to the marketing company just randomly trying their hand for some addresses from the Met's database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indiana Jones said:

Perhaps I might progress a third case for you - that it was neither sold, nor just given away, but was sent to them as part of an agreement entered into. As opposed to the marketing company just randomly trying their hand for some addresses from the Met's database.

what so they gave it to someone who hadnt asked for it. It keeps getting worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, george b said:

what so they gave it to someone who hadnt asked for it. It keeps getting worse

That's not what I said. You're coming across as a bit ranty this week. Take a deep breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Indiana Jones said:

That's not what I said. You're coming across as a bit ranty this week. Take a deep breath.

well there is only so many options', they sold it, they gave to someone who asked for it, they gave it to someone who didn't ask for it. Which one are you going with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0