PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

'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.

"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?

 

[Centurions]

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..

It has been in the MSM though bud.

 

[blueyorkie]

Can Prestwich Blue give us a definitive answer as to the ownership of MCFC? Is it a very rich Sheik or the state of Abu Dhabi.I am fed up of hearing all the pundits, so called journalists and fans of other clubs spouting their bile on the subject.I dont mind either way but it would be good to know the truth on the subject.

Go into Companies House website, they provide the names if the shareholders

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

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 a Scouser moves in next door and you.leave your windows open to go to work knowing there is a jobless Scouser living next door all day long then you deserve all you get

 

[Sir peace frog]

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.

 

[bluenova]

'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.

There have been cases where ex-employees have been sent to prison for accessing data using a current employee's log in details.

Here's one where the ICO used the Computer Misuse Act and it's described as hacking:

Sorry, we can't find that page

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales with over 150,000 members.

www.icaew.com

While I assume they wouldn't pursue a similar case if it's just 'trade secrets' about who City were tracking (although they might if the data was confidential contact details/personal info which the club used to contact potential targets), it does suggest that it's legally considered as hacking.

 

[Son of Merv]

"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?

As a data controller, certainly. What we do know is that for a lengthy period, an existing users password was used to access data. Two rules that any data controller should have in place for their users:

1) change your password regularly.
2) dont let anyone else know your password.

We dont know exactly how 2 failed, but any 'data loss' would have been minimised if 1 had been followed.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Victim blaming comes to mind…
“If you don’t want people to steal your sensitive data maybe you should change your password more often!”

The only thing city were guilty of is once again being too trusting, even of their own (ex)employees and it’s a mistake that seems to have been repeatedly made during this entire thing. Hopefully we’ve learnt our lesson!

 

[Damanino]

I expect another charge of VAR refs on our payroll through some UAE shell company. we need to use the defence of Barcelona, who says they paid the refs to make sure they ref games fairly and not against them. :)

 

[East Level 2]

What if City left those passwords unchanged on purpose? :)

Perhaps we did, and hoped Liverpool would buy Fred and Slabhead rather than the rags.