PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
Correct if this is regrading the ex-employees accessing our scouting database, it was done and dusted years ago and presumably the relevant authorities were informed including the PL and everyone moved on.

I find it rather pathetic and small minded that people on here keep bringing it up although I do have a lot of doubts about some of the repeat offenders.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about the PL but I can tell you for a fact that the ICO didn’t know a thing about it until it belatedly hit the press years later
 
Keeper! said:
"A report published in The Times in November revealed that, in 2013, the two clubs reached a confidential settlement relating to alleged 'spying' worth £1m."

What's even more funny and plain weird is why WE allowed this to be brushed under the carpet so easily, we took a 1M payoff and more importantly or laughable, signed a non disclosure with the dippers.

I have said before but one issue I do have with our ownership is is meek minded way it's "fights" it's distractors.
Click to expand...
We really needed to tighten up our digital security some time ago in hindsight didn’t we.
 
cheekybids said:
No it’s a response to your last line

“The charges and the Liverpool 'hacking' are for the most part self-inflicted.”
Click to expand...
Subsequent events definitely yes but the onus in protecting all critical information is on the club and they failed dismally.

It's like someone said 'Fred knows computers and he's been here years so he can look after them'. It reminds me of the management of the company I worked at before my last one.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
Subsequent events definitely yes but the onus in protecting all critical information is on the club and they failed dismally.

It's like someone said 'Fred knows computers and he's been here years so he can look after them'. It reminds me of the management of the company I worked at before my last one.
Click to expand...

Scouting database I think is tough as it’s designed for remote access but it could be that it has different authority levels.

As long as it never happens again.

I was talking to my mate who was investigating & taking control of a huge hack for a blue chip company & the hackers had been in the network 12 months before holding it for ransom.
 
Centurions said:
Correct if this is regrading the ex-employees accessing our scouting database, it was done and dusted years ago and presumably the relevant authorities were informed including the PL and everyone moved on.

I find it rather pathetic and small minded that people on here keep bringing it up although I do have a lot of doubts about some of the repeat offenders.
Click to expand...
Agreed, almost as small minded as hitting City with over a hundred petty allegations from a period of time necessary to our investment growth.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
Subsequent events definitely yes but the onus in protecting all critical information is on the club and they failed dismally.

It's like someone said 'Fred knows computers and he's been here years so he can look after them'. It reminds me of the management of the company I worked at before my last one.
Click to expand...

The club appointed a Chief Technology Officer at the CFG level in 2017, with the following brief...

"to help CFG achieve its ambition of being the most technologically advanced football group in the world"

Its probably safe to assume we have a raised our security game drastically from the period when the convicted extortionist (Rui Pinto) carried out the IT attack.

Ref: https://www.cityfootballgroup.com/our-business/leadership-team/

The same CFG General Counsel (Simon Cliff) is still in post (since 2008) and is responsible for :-

"overseeing the organization's legal, company secretarial, safeguarding and compliance functions"

In a parallel universe I bumped into Simon in Mary's before a game, we had a 3 pint chat all about the charges, and he said "don't worry fella it's ALL in hand...."
 
LongsightM13 said:
I’ve been though this before
The Liverpool employee(s) undoubtedly committed criminal offences under both the previous, pre GDPR data protection act and also the computer misuse act, and would/should have faced prosecution. The latter legislation includes prison sentences as a potential penalty
However, both the cult (if there was evidence they knew about it) and City were also potentially liable for civil penalties under the old DPA and fines of up to £500k had it been reported to the ICO. The scousers for unlawful access to personal data and City for failing in their legal duty to keep personal data secure from unauthorised access.
So it probably suited both parties to keep it quiet
Click to expand...
Spot on. We faced a big reputational risk as well as Liverpool because we had been sloppy with our data. And some of that data would have been sensitive information about youth and academy players at other clubs. We would also have faced fines for allowing the data breach. A total can of worms.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Spot on. We faced a big reputational risk as well as Liverpool because we had been sloppy with our data. And some of that data would have been sensitive information about youth and academy players at other clubs. We would also have faced fines for allowing the data breach. A total can of worms.
Click to expand...
Yep and because it almost certainly contained medical information, it would have been classed as particularly sensitive. And so the potential penalties were exacerbated
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
Subsequent events definitely yes but the onus in protecting all critical information is on the club and they failed dismally.

It's like someone said 'Fred knows computers and he's been here years so he can look after them'. It reminds me of the management of the company I worked at before my last one.
Click to expand...
Something to note here is that the system we use isn't something in house. City are using a public system called Scout7.

When this member of staff would have left City, we could have well informed them to remove his access but it appears they didn't.
Perhaps we didn't want to bring Scout7 into court, I dont know.
 
decmancity said:
Something to note here is that the system we use isn't something in house. City are using a public system called Scout7.

When this member of staff would have left City, we could have well informed them to remove his access but it appears they didn't.
Perhaps we didn't want to bring Scout7 into court, I dont know.
Click to expand...
Think he used someone else’s log in details who was still at City
 
decmancity said:
Well if thats the case then its hardly City's fault is it. How can we protect against a member of staff having is password set to City123 and the other fella guessing correctly.
Click to expand...
Don’t know the ins and outs but I imagine it was either very easy to predict or else it was left in an insecure location where others could access it
Plenty of protocols can be put in place to protect against that, eg two factor authentication etc
 
ayrshire_blue said:
In terms of gaining a meaningful sporting advantage, I'd argue that hacking into another clubs scouting database is a much more serious offence than anything alleged in the current witch hunt against us.

Don't care if it was a rogue employee or not. He was employed by Liverpool and there's little doubt he'd have kept the acquired information to himself and it wouldn't have became common knowledge amongst the senior figures and hierarchy at the club.

They cheated, simple as.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a ‘rogue’ employee. It was 2 or 3 of them, with the approval of Michael Edwards.IMG_2998.jpeg
 
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