Update thanks to the Limerick Blogger: He did it to others too.
via Treasa is this Irish Examiner article about Tony Gregory passing on details of a pro-hunting campaigner that emailed him. Tony passed the details on to an anti-hunting group who in turn complained to the chief executive of her company.
The Irish Council against Blood Sports confirmed it made the complaints after being passed the correspondence by Independent TD Tony Gregory, who is the organisationâ€™s vice-president.
It is unusual for politicians to distribute an individualâ€™s correspondence to a third party â€” particularly a third party opposed to that individualâ€™s view.
Within hours of the woman making her representations, the council emailed her employer, complaining directly to the chief executive of the company.
In the complaint, the council drew attention to the fact that the woman had used her work email account to write to the TDs.
Looks like a violation of the law to me. Wouldn’t a TD be a data controller both directly (his constituents) and indirectly (as a candidate)?
If she emailed Tony in his capacity as a non hunter not in his capacity as a TD then _tou_ bleedin _ché_ missus !
on the other hand if she did not realise while spamming *.*@oireachtas.ie that he is a non hunter as well as a TD then _tou_ bleedin _ché_ missus !
either way _tou_ bleedin _ché_ missus.
You still have a job in Estate Agency at a historically trying time for your ‘profession’ . Do not take this out on a deer please.
TDs are data protection “units”, and are required to register with the Commissioner. Unless she wrote to him at a @feckoffhunters.ie email address, it’s correspondence to a TD, in which case:
1) It’s privileged information as a TD’s ‘papers’
2) There’s a data protection issue because he shouldn’t be revealing the person’s name without permission
3) All correspondence to a TD has generally been considered confidential in the courts in the past (e.g. the Howlin case – although the information could be demanded by court order, it was not releasable without a court order)
4) He shouldn’t be doing it regardless of what the legal or data protection consequences are
What is this about Estate Agents and their irrational ( or programmed) desire to kill animals ???
If Tony were to allow Estate Agents to be classed as ‘animals’ and if we could form a ‘hunt’ and then hunt them down at the weekends for ‘sport’ I can therein see an equitable resolution to this whole mess.
These same estate agents are the ones who conjure “phantom bidders” out of thin air at a whim.
Thats quite an unusual problem for anyone concerned with data protection issues in the abstract because when you bid ( a data item) you are then forced to bid against a non data item invented by the estate agent . Should one be entitled to full disclosure of what , in effect , is nothing ….a bagatelle in DP terms.
They are fundamentally undeserving of our sympathy….just like that fannywaters fella really .
Lets move onto Oil and Gas exploration in Moyross !
would it change things if the two concerned were nurses or bin collectors? The issue here is not what they do for a living, it’s whether it’s right for their details to be passed to a third party lobby organisation by a TD and for that third party to use those details and target their employers.
I don’t think it’s right and I don’t think it’s morally justifiable.
I make an exception for morality and involving estate agents .
I make a further exeption or two for morality and involving estate agents who have a hobby that involves persecuting dumb animals as a sport after they finish a weeks work persecuting other dumb animals for profit.
Consider it a karma issue that transcends all technical DP issues Treasa, if you will 🙂