The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot get upset if someone assumes that all members have access if you say 'members have access' without definition.

That is all I did, assume. Somebody has trouble accepting that.

Well somebody believes you made a mistake assuming that, would be a better description tbh

I doubt SF itself will be in a hurry to assume all members rather than just members have access
Do I just register my new membership now or will I have to wait 2 weeks for say a physical membership card,to gain access to this treasure throve of email addresses,physical addresses,eircodes,who's married to who, voter registration ready d.o.b's etc etc

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Well somebody believes you made a mistake assuming that, would be a better description tbh

I doubt SF itself will be in a hurry to assume all members rather than just members have access
Do I just register my new membership now or will I have to wait 2 weeks for say a physical membership card,to gain access to this treasure throve of email addresses,physical addresses,eircodes,who's married to who, voter registration ready d.o.b's etc etc

Somebody accused me of lying...let's not be putting a tooth in it. Turns out the only person using quote tags was them.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody accused me of lying...let's not be putting a tooth in it. Turns out the only person using quote tags was them.

Do you think you were mistaken in the rush to declare Abú less secret than it actually was?
Or what was it you were at?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Do you think you were mistaken in the rush to declare Abú less secret than it actually was?
Or what was it you were at?

When I am shown (as I asked the poster who accused me of lying) that only selected members had access...not a problem accepting it.

Until then all I can rely on is what I've read.
Poster is now suggesting I made the charge against SF a more serious one....wait for it...in order to downplay it. Couldn't make it up tbh.

expectationlost

bobbysands81 wrote: »

“Websites for TDs from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party, Sinn Féin, and the Social Democrats were not compliant, an analysis by the Irish Examiner found.”

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40273802.html

Looks like the FGers jumped in a tad too quickly here... as was pointed out to them umpteen times already on the thread.

this current issues isn't really about websites, its about databases.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When I am shown (as I asked the poster who accused me of lying) that only selected members had access...not a problem accepting it.

Until then all I can rely on is what I've read.
Poster is now suggesting I made the charge against SF a more serious one....wait for it...in order to downplay it. Couldn't make it up tbh.

This is what you said


“I quoted what Mr Ryan said in his original piece”.


That is what you said and that is untrue.

bobbysands81

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s 5 mainstream journalists now who have spoken up in the last week about abuse being received from SF’s online activists.

This is a situation entirely of SFs making. You lie down with dogs then you wake up with fleas.

Twitter is a cesspit, anyone that posts anything about anything gets abuse.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

This is what you said


“I quoted what Mr Ryan said in his original piece”.


That is what you said and that is untrue.

Yes, that 'members had access'. I assumed that meant all members, If you can prove that wrong, work away.

That's an end to the nonsense around this. I've clarified and explained enough.

bobbysands81

expectationlost wrote: »

this current issues isn't really about websites, its about databases.

Really? I thought it was about breaches of GDPR?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that 'members had access'. I assumed that meant all members, If you can prove that wrong, work away.

That's an end to the nonsense around this. I've clarified and explained enough.

So you are admitting after all the denials that you in fact did not quote the article?

piplip87

I see a few posts on Twitter lambasting FF TDs for having their websites hosted in the US. The Shinners are taking this as gotcha..... Mostly their Wix websites so there all hosted in the US. Another one of the FG website and Cloud fare protection again Shinners showing themselves to be as ignorant about IT as they are about proportional representation

FrancieBrady

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Really? I thought it was about breaches of GDPR?

Gas, they are now running for cover...what we did is not the same as what you did.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When I am shown (as I asked the poster who accused me of lying) that only selected members had access...not a problem accepting it.

Until then all I can rely on is what I've read.
Poster is now suggesting I made the charge against SF a more serious one....wait for it...in order to downplay it. Couldn't make it up tbh.

In other words,you did, in your rush to defend your party,make a mistake,that you are being called on to,but refuse to acknowledge
Inadvertently in your rush,yes you did make the charge more serious,as the implication is I can sign up to your party and gain access to personal data

Now thats what happens,when we rush replies
But don't fret
We all do that sometimes

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

In other words,you did, in your rush to defend your party,make a mistake,that you are being called on to,but refuse to acknowledge
Inadvertently in your rush,yes you did make the charge more serious,as the implication is I can sign up to your party and gain access to personal data

Now thats what happens,when we rush replies
But don't fret
We all do that sometimes

No wages for me this week so.

This by the way, is the poster that accepted there were possible issues with this for SF from the get go.

expectationlost

jmcc wrote: »

CA was quite sophisticated in what it did. The problem is that the politicians and the public don't understand what it did. It targeted people who were potential influencers rather than targeting everyone in their datasets.

Regards...jmcc

https://extra.ie/2021/04/25/news/politics/ff-and-fg-fear-abu-database-is-to-target-sleeper-candidates

Sources have also expressed concern that the real purpose of Sinn Féin’s controversial Abú database is to identify potential ‘Sinn Féin sleepers’.

ignore the spy fiction term sleepers but could sleepers mean influencers who could become candidates.

of course once you start running multiple candidates run you run the risk of splitting your vote.

jmcc

expectationlost wrote: »

https://extra.ie/2021/04/25/news/politics/ff-and-fg-fear-abu-database-is-to-target-sleeper-candidates ignore the spy fiction term sleepers but could sleepers mean influences who could become candidates.

You do realise that it is a "John Drennan" article? That "Analysts believe" phrase is right up there with the "People say" phrase as a way commentators use to express their own opinion.

of course once you start running multiple candidates run you run the risk of splitting your vote.

Yes. FF and FG learned that to their cost in GE 2020. In some cases, they had enough votes for a single candidate for the last seat but other parties running single candidates (Greens for example) won the seat as the two FF or FG candidates fratricided.

Regards...jmcc

StupidLikeAFox

jmcc wrote: »

.Yes. FF and FG learned that to their cost in GE 2020. In some cases, they had enough votes for a single candidate for the last seat but other parties running single candidates (Greens for example) won the seat as the two FF or FG candidates fratricided.

Regards...jmcc

What constituencies did that happen in?

jmcc

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What constituencies did that happen in?

Waterford is one. Apparently FG had two candidates (one of whom was John Cummins). The two had enough for a single seat and were in contention for the last seat. When it came to the critical round of eliminations, the Green (O'Cathasaigh) had enough votes to get the last seat while the two FGers were eliminated. First time Waterford had been without an FG TD for decades, I think. FG lost a lot of its Middle Class vote in Waterford City and I think that a lot of it went to an Independent (Shanahan).

Regards...jmcc

nigeldaniel

In my opinion, the only reason Abu is not held in the republic is that Belfast is worried that if in the republic the authorities will get to see what is in it. The Belfast brigade would not like that to happen.

FrancieBrady

nigeldaniel wrote: »

In my opinion, the only reason Abu is not held in the republic is that Belfast is worried that if in the republic the authorities will get to see what is in it. The Belfast brigade would not like that to happen.

Yeh, makes sense. Keep a top 'secret' database then hold a conference to train every Tom, Pearse and Mary to use it. :D:D

maccored

nigeldaniel wrote: »

In my opinion, the only reason Abu is not held in the republic is that Belfast is worried that if in the republic the authorities will get to see what is in it. The Belfast brigade would not like that to happen.

hilarious to see that this poster doesnt seem to find anything wrong with government parties being able to access data from opposing political parties. In this case mind you, all parties have access to the electoral database anyway so they already know whats on it.

Im sure anyone with a democratic bone in their body wouldn't be happy if whatever parties where in government could snoop through a person's /party's / business's digital files at will, regardless of who they are.

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

hilarious to see that this poster doesnt seem to find anything wrong with government parties being able to access data from opposing political parties. In this case mind you, all parties have access to the electoral database anyway so they already know whats on it.

Im sure anyone with a democratic bone in their body wouldn't be happy if whatever parties where in government could snoop through a person's /party's / business's digital files at will, regardless of who they are.

Hilarious to see a poster who thinks “the authorities” are the political parties in government.

Do you think the minister for communications and justice are CC’d in every correspondence with the DPC?

Fann Linn

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Hilarious to see a poster who thinks “the authorities” are the political parties in government.

Do you think the minister for communications and justice are CC’d in every correspondence with the DPC?

Well. There is precedence.
#Leotheleak debunks all confidentiality.

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

Well. There is precedence.
#Leotheleak debunks all confidentiality.

Justice Ministers seemed to have access to info on people if they needed it for political purpose too, if my memory isn't shattered.

StupidLikeAFox

maccored wrote: »

hilarious to see that this poster doesnt seem to find anything wrong with government parties being able to access data from opposing political parties. In this case mind you, all parties have access to the electoral database anyway so they already know whats on it.

Im sure anyone with a democratic bone in their body wouldn't be happy if whatever parties where in government could snoop through a person's /party's / business's digital files at will, regardless of who they are.

Can we just agree that nobody actually knows what was i the abu database, what was being used for and what kind in information was going into it?

I'm fairly sure it wasnt a copy and paste of the electoral register, and it almost certainly wasn't recording what people put on their cornflakes. Its somewhere in the middle there and I would be reluctant to dismiss it as a nothing story until the details come out.

#LeotheLeak is a serious enough issue in its own right, but completely separate, and is being given a lot more attention than this database is (despite what the geniuses on twitter say). Shouldn't be mentioned in the same discussion tbh. If your first response to a story on your favourite party is to ignore the story and point at the other guy it just looks like a deflection tactic (or you've something to hide) to a neutral observer

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Hilarious to see a poster who thinks “the authorities” are the political parties in government.

Do you think the minister for communications and justice are CC’d in every correspondence with the DPC?

ah right, so its grand that 'the authorities' get to peek at everything then. yeah .. right

maccored

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Can we just agree that nobody actually knows what was i the abu database, what was being used for and what kind in information was going into it?r

absolutely. Ive said it more than once on this thread - lets wait and see, rather than make up whats going on and make assumptions on whats going to happen

SafeSurfer

Fann Linn wrote: »

Well. There is precedence.
#Leotheleak debunks all confidentiality.

What do you mean by “#Leotheleak debunks all confidentiality”?

Do you believe that government politicians can pick up the phone and get any information held by the state on anyone?

Sinn Fein in government in Stormont has proven to be the leakiest party by far. From infiltration by foreign security agencies to sharing documents with unelected senior republicans like Ted Howell.

Confidentially is not a stick Sinn Fein can beat anyone with.

Bubbaclaus

maccored wrote: »

ah right, so its grand that 'the authorities' get to peek at everything then. yeah .. right

Your argument appears to be that there should be no oversight of Irish political parties, would that be a fair assessment?

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

ah right, so its grand that 'the authorities' get to peek at everything then. yeah .. right

People have a right to have their data protected. If Sinn Fein or any other party hold data on an individual which has not been consented to then whose responsibility is it to vindicate individual rights if not the authorities?

Who should investigate data protection if not “the authorities”.

Would you like it to be done in secret by an independent observer as with decommissioning?