CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

CAS might be waiting for a commitment from UEFA that they will punish Tebas for bad mouthing them. That’s a wild guess of course but if I was CAS I would want UEFA to do something about the fascist.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
CAS might be waiting for a commitment from UEFA that they will punish Tebas for bad mouthing them. That’s a wild guess of course but if I was CAS I would want UEFA to do something about the fascist.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting angle. When you look at the comments made by Liverpool FC, and particularly Bayern and Dortmund, they are not just attacking City are they? All those clubs (and pundits) who have queried the verdict are essentially accusing the CAS judges of being bent. A lot of those clubs are prominent members of the European Clubs Association so their comments will not have done anything to improve UEFA's repuation with CAS.
 
the CAS full report needs to be released and then city can start to taking the fuckers who have bad mouthed us to court, and i would be also looking into the £10 million fine for the so called non involvement with uefa ? this sounds daft because city and uefa have history and the club would be silly to hand over documents to them knowing what they are like ? also city did come out and say we did send uefa all the document they requested ??
 
LongsightM13 said:
Which is probably why we settled. While the Liverpool employees responsible have almost certainly committed criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act, City would also have been open to civil enforcement from the ICO under the latter legislation for failing to properly secure personal data
Click to expand...
That's wrong. It was a third-party hosted application they accessed, which we had our own partition on ( at least as I understand it). So I don't think we would have been responsible for security. If someone had an active login then I suspect they'd be allowed on.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's wrong. It was a third-party hosted application they accessed, which we had our own partition on ( at least as I understand it). So I don't think we would have been responsible for security. If someone had an active login then I suspect they'd be allowed on.
Click to expand...

No idea of the law but shouldn't best practice be for everyone to change their login details when colleagues join a rival?
 
Rolee said:
No idea of the law but shouldn't best practice be for everyone to change their login details when colleagues join a rival?
Click to expand...
Best practice is not to reveal login details but given that the person whose login was used is still with us, then we must assume his password was stolen somehow without his knowledge. As the two who presumably stole it went straight to Liverpool then you have to wonder if they weren't acting under instructions to start with.
 
projectriver said:
This is why I think City should announce they are happy for it to be released - a "it's not us guv." at very least we should be briefing
Click to expand...
If for whatever reason certain material is taken out by CAS despite say City protests can we legally ask for an explanation?
My point being that it will remove context that may help others to skew reporting.

Evidence of this is the biased reporting in most media since their initial verdict which in fairness was clear but still reported as guilt and technicalities.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's wrong. It was a third-party hosted application they accessed, which we had our own partition on ( at least as I understand it). So I don't think we would have been responsible for security. If someone had an active login then I suspect they'd be allowed on.
Click to expand...
If it were a third party application, the club may still have been responsible for certain housekeeping duties like access control.
 
The current Bluemoon experience:

YVi.gif
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's wrong. It was a third-party hosted application they accessed, which we had our own partition on ( at least as I understand it). So I don't think we would have been responsible for security. If someone had an active login then I suspect they'd be allowed on.
Click to expand...

Man city would still be the "controller" of the data in question even if it was hosted by a third party, so therefore would be liable for any breaches, this is why companies need to do Data Privacy Impact assessments under DPA2018 where the data stored could hold special category data. (ie. medical information) Under the DPA the controller of the data must make sure the data is secure and safe, this also extends to people that process the data on the controllers behalf. This is why companies have password policies where users must change their password every x days/weeks/months so even if a password was breached unknowingly, it would be changed at some point.
 
Moebius said:
Man city would still be the "controller" of the data in question even if it was hosted by a third party, so therefore would be liable for any breaches, this is why companies need to do Data Privacy Impact assessments under DPA2018 where the data stored could hold special category data. (ie. medical information) Under the DPA the controller of the data must make sure the data is secure and safe, this also extends to people that process the data on the controllers behalf. This is why companies have password policies where users must change their password every x days/weeks/months so even if a password was breached unknowingly, it would be changed at some point.
Click to expand...
GDPR is wank.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
GDPR is wank.
Click to expand...
The (alleged) criminal offences committed by Liverpool FC employees and any associated civil breaches of data security requirements by City would pre-date GDPR and the DPA 2018, to be fair. They would be under the previous Data Protection Act 1998.
The irony is that action would probably now be time-barred. Now where have we heard that before...
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Best practice is not to reveal login details but given that the person whose login was used is still with us, then we must assume his password was stolen somehow without his knowledge. As the two who presumably stole it went straight to Liverpool then you have to wonder if they weren't acting under instructions to start with.
Click to expand...
Any further info on the release of news against certain clubs?
 
LongsightM13 said:
The (alleged) criminal offences committed by Liverpool FC employees and any associated civil breaches of data security requirements by City would pre-date GDPR and the DPA 2018, to be fair. They would be under the previous Data Protection Act 1998.
The irony is that action would probably now be time-barred. Now where have we heard that before...
Click to expand...
It’s still wank, though. And fucking tedious too.
 
projectriver said:
This is why I think City should announce they are happy for it to be released - a "it's not us guv." at very least we should be briefing
Click to expand...
All the signs are that City do not brief even when warranted. Why on earth not, I cannot comprehend. This whole saga calls out for active issues management.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top