TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 38,847
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Give it 10 years...
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
manimanc
Well-Known Member
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Data protection law is different to the criminal law, it allows for a mix of both criminal and civil liability for the same incident
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Or maybe just maybe some people work or have worked in the industry and know a lot more about it and the legalities involved than you. Or indeed your hypothetical ‘Maccy DS’ employee
Spygate reports sent to FA by computer expert
Martyn Ziegler, Matt Dickinson
January 15 2020, 12:01am, The Times
Liverpool did not accept any liability or wrongdoing CLIVE BRUNSKILL/GETTY IMAGES
Two reports from a forensic computer expert detailing alleged hacking of Manchester City’s scouting system by Liverpool staff are among documents being examined by the FA.
The governing body has been considering whether to take action over the case for several months and has asked both clubs a series of questions over the Spygate affair, which led to Liverpool paying City £1 million in a confidential settlement in 2013.
As revealed by The Times in September, Liverpool’s sporting director Michael Edwards and two former City scouts, Dave Fallows and Julian Ward, were named in the settlement.
The forensic computer expert tracked suspicious logins to the Scout7 system and the IP addresses where the logins were made from. It is understood he identified hundreds of occasions when it was alleged that the login of Rob Newman, a Manchester City scout, was used illicitly by senior Liverpool staff from June 2012 to February 2013.
The FA’s disciplinary department will have to decide whether Edwards, Fallows and Ward should face misconduct charges. The £1 million settlement was made without Liverpool accepting any liability or wrongdoing.
The Premier League has so far declined to become involved despite its rule that clubs must behave with the “utmost good faith” towards each other.
Martyn Ziegler, Matt Dickinson
January 15 2020, 12:01am, The Times
Liverpool did not accept any liability or wrongdoing CLIVE BRUNSKILL/GETTY IMAGES
Two reports from a forensic computer expert detailing alleged hacking of Manchester City’s scouting system by Liverpool staff are among documents being examined by the FA.
The governing body has been considering whether to take action over the case for several months and has asked both clubs a series of questions over the Spygate affair, which led to Liverpool paying City £1 million in a confidential settlement in 2013.
As revealed by The Times in September, Liverpool’s sporting director Michael Edwards and two former City scouts, Dave Fallows and Julian Ward, were named in the settlement.
The forensic computer expert tracked suspicious logins to the Scout7 system and the IP addresses where the logins were made from. It is understood he identified hundreds of occasions when it was alleged that the login of Rob Newman, a Manchester City scout, was used illicitly by senior Liverpool staff from June 2012 to February 2013.
The FA’s disciplinary department will have to decide whether Edwards, Fallows and Ward should face misconduct charges. The £1 million settlement was made without Liverpool accepting any liability or wrongdoing.
The Premier League has so far declined to become involved despite its rule that clubs must behave with the “utmost good faith” towards each other.
This is the kind of shit we have to put up with.
This about Barca yet we get dragged into it like we do with everything else.
The comments say it all.
I hope we have got governments involved and I hope we bring the lot to its fucking knees.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
click·bait
/ˈklikbāt/
noun
- (on the internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.
"these recent reports of the show's imminent demise are hyperbolic clickbait"
Centurions
Well-Known Member
You don't have to "put up with it" if you simply don't watch it. Not posting links to the crap wouldn't come amiss either.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm. If you managed to penetrate the Internet as far as Blue Moon, I'm pretty sure you can go back a step and google it for yourself........
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
No its all on the user of the information. unless the information was given with the express permission of the owner then it is irrelevant, if you are aware of someone's logon details that doesn't given you permission, logon details are classified as secret in most organisations. Using such information is a criminal offence under the misuse of computer act 1990.
Unauthorised access to computer material.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured];
(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and
(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2)The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—
(a)any particular program or data;
(b)a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c)a program or data held in any particular computer.
[F3(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F4the general limit in a magistrates’ court] or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F512] months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.]
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Manchester City Limited is 100% owned by the City Football Group
CFG is majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, with a significant minority shareholding held by global technology investment firm, Sliver Lake (18.16%).
the talisman
Well-Known Member
Can’t believe people are so quick to blame City for all this shit.
If you leave a window unlocked and someone comes in and steals stuff you may have been a bit careless but the scumbag that took advantage is a thieving ****.
Some of the biggest companies in the world have been hacked, the fault lies squarely with the hacker. “Self inflicted” …… fuck off
If you leave a window unlocked and someone comes in and steals stuff you may have been a bit careless but the scumbag that took advantage is a thieving ****.
Some of the biggest companies in the world have been hacked, the fault lies squarely with the hacker. “Self inflicted” …… fuck off
David Kloppesh
Well-Known Member
What if City left those passwords unchanged on purpose? :)
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Some supposed Blues are only too happy to blame City first and foremost regardless of facts.
Son of Merv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2016
- Messages
- 219
It isn't about 'blaming City'. Data Protection laws are there to protect the data subjects and ensure any data controller processes data fairly and with adequate security.
If this case did become of interest to the ICO, the first question they would ask is 'how did the Liverpool employees get hold of the password?'. We don't know how they knew, but it would appear to be entirely on City that they did. It doesn't matter what 'Liverpool' did, City allowed it to happen and failed to keep data they hold safe.
Both Liverpool and City reached an agreement that the matter would go no further, no data subjects complained and no action was taken by any authorities. Both sides have a lot to answer for, but everyone agrees it's done with.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Did you not just prove my point?
And if it's "done with" why do people keep bringing it up?
Son of Merv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2016
- Messages
- 219
'We' don't know...the parties that matter do. City were the Data Controller and allowed data to be accessed by an outside source. We weren't illegally hacked. We did not maintain proper security of a low level data base and that is on us.
I don't know why people keep bringing it up...deflection?, 'whataboutism'?, gaslighting? a sense of injustice that Liverpool 'get away with stuff'? City took action appropriate to the situation and people need to accept that and move on.
Agree and it was good it was kept out the news social media! Now if it was city hacking I think someone at Liverpool would have leaked it and made a right meal out of it! You know why that's how they do it when they believe they've been hard done too..
Centurions
Well-Known Member
"but it would appear to be entirely on City that they did"
That suggests that you think it's on City though without any of us knowing exactly what happened?