Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

GDPR -new employer excluding me from communication

2»

Comments

  • #52
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    As most whistle blowers find out. We don't deal will with anyone highlighting a problem in Ireland.


  • #53
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,282 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Years before GDPR.

    Indeed - so much time for people to have learnt the basics of data protection - a decade in this case


  • #54
    skallywag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭skallywag


    my3cents wrote: »
    All that has happened is that the CCed recipients will know there is at least one BCCed recipient. The don't see the whole BCCed list

    That's exactly my point, the person who was BCC'd is going to be revealed to those on the CC/TO list. This can cause people to get very pissed off, i.e. those in the CC/TO field.


  • #55
    skallywag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭skallywag


    beauf wrote: »
    I don't think reply all works like that. Also there are valid cases where you don't want people to know everyones email.

    It does.

    If someone on bcc replies to all, then everyone on the to/cc field will get a message from the person who was on bcc. The others on bcc will not, but those on to/cc will. Hence the person who was hidden gets outed.


  • #56
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    skallywag wrote: »
    It does.

    If someone on bcc replies to all, then everyone on the to/cc field will get a message from the person who was on bcc. The others on bcc will not, but those on to/cc will. Hence the person who was hidden gets outed.

    You have no idea if the person was bcc or was forwarded the email by someone on the cc list.

    In fact you have no idea if the entire world was not forwarded that email subsequently.

    Getting worked up because someone who is not on the original list replies to it, is truly bizarre.

    You bcc entire list so that no one gets the entire list. I thought that was obvious. Considering this is a GDPR related.

    People play dumb games with email. There is nothing you can do about that.


  • #57
    my3cents
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭my3cents


    skallywag wrote: »
    That's exactly my point, the person who was BCC'd is going to be revealed to those on the CC/TO list. This can cause people to get very pissed off, i.e. those in the CC/TO field.

    Is that a point worth bothering about? iirc I read a hyped up article about that a while back which didn't make a lot of sense simply because having supported Exchange and then worked with a company that monitored email I never came anyone that complained about it.

    You really need to have far too much time on your hands to be worrying about someone else getting an email and you not knowing about it.

    If thats worth bothering about as a case because it might piss people off then broadcasting a private email address to a distribution list of people that don't need to see it is just as bad.


  • #58
    skallywag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭skallywag


    my3cents wrote: »
    Is that a point worth bothering about?

    It can be, and I can give you a good example.

    I recall a time a project manager working with us sent an email to his project team strongly berating them over a certain issue. He put their group manager on bcc. The group manager then replied to all in order to weigh in on it, not knowing that he was bcc'd in the first place. This left the project manager with major egg on his face as he had not wanted the team to know that he had also informed their boss, and to the team it came across that their project manager was a complete snake. They confronted him demanding to know why their boss was not marked in the open on cc, and why he felt the need to hide it via bcc. If, on the other hand, the project manager had forwarded the mail afterwards, then it would have been obvious to the group manager that he had not been copied on the original.

    The main danger of bcc is that the person who is being bcc'd will not always realise it.


  • #59
    my3cents
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭my3cents


    skallywag wrote: »
    It can be, and I can give you a good example.

    I recall a time a project manager working with us sent an email to his project team strongly berating them over a certain issue. He put their group manager on bcc. The group manager then replied to all in order to weigh in on it, not knowing that he was bcc'd in the first place. This left the project manager with major egg on his face as he had not wanted the team to know that he had also informed their boss, and to the team it came across that their project manager was a complete snake. They confronted him demanding to know why their boss was not marked in the open on cc, and why he felt the need to hide it via bcc. If, on the other hand, the project manager had forwarded the mail afterwards, then it would have been obvious to the group manager that he had not been copied on the original.

    The main danger of bcc is that the person who is being bcc'd will not always realise it.

    But that shouldn't be the case here.

    If everyone on the list was BCCed as I think they should be then there would be no such issue.

    There are good reasons for CCing when you want a group to get the same set of instructions/information and to let everyone in the group know that.

    In the OP's case why does he need to know anything about other contractors on site that work for the same agency? They aren't doing the same job by the sound of it and are only a group as far as the agency are concerned.


  • #60
    skallywag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭skallywag


    my3cents wrote: »
    But that shouldn't be the case here.

    If everyone on the list was BCCed as I think they should be then there would be no such issue.

    It was a project manager addressing the complete project team, are you seriously suggesting he should have bcc'd everyone? It would then have looked like the issue was with one individual rather than shared across the team ...

    In the OP's case I agree with you. My point is relating to your statement that it should not be a point worth bothering about if someone is bcc'd without the knowledge of those on the cc/to fields.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    skallywag wrote: »
    It can be, and I can give you a good example.

    I recall a time a project manager working with us sent an email to his project team strongly berating them over a certain issue. He put their group manager on bcc. The group manager then replied to all in order to weigh in on it, not knowing that he was bcc'd in the first place. This left the project manager with major egg on his face as he had not wanted the team to know that he had also informed their boss, and to the team it came across that their project manager was a complete snake. They confronted him demanding to know why their boss was not marked in the open on cc, and why he felt the need to hide it via bcc. If, on the other hand, the project manager had forwarded the mail afterwards, then it would have been obvious to the group manager that he had not been copied on the original.

    The main danger of bcc is that the person who is being bcc'd will not always realise it.

    The issue there is a team thats so dumb they don't realise everything gets reported upwards anyway, and they they don't need to be told that explicitly.

    Very childish group.


  • #62
    skallywag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭skallywag


    beauf wrote: »
    The issue there is a team thats so dumb they don't realise everything gets reported upwards anyway, and they they don't need to be told that explicitly.

    I strongly disagree.

    I've often criticized my own project team without feeling the need to inform their own direct supervisors.

    If it becomes a recurring thing, then yes, I shall go to the boss in question. But I'm not going to report upwards anyway on what could be an isolated incident in a project team which is generally performing well.


  • #63
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I assume it only gets to email if you want a permanent record of something. So it must be serious. Or need recording.
    If its not serious maybe they should be told to stop emailing people with trivial squabbles.

    None of that has anything to do with...

    Emailing contractor details to a bunch of people who have no need to know them, and which may be commercially sensitive.
    People not getting emails they should get due to someone not knowing how to manage email lists properly.

    Its unlikely to be a GDPR issue.


Advertisement