11-08-2013, 08:12 AM
Patrick McGovern Wrote:kind of ironic given the comments on data protection on here months ago. it would be another dose of schadenfruede if those previously demanding info under the data protection were now hung by it
For those not familiar with the word schadenfreude - it is a foreign word lifted directly into English. Like many other words in that category (such as chutzpah) it is hard to accurately define in the English language Wikipedia comes up with "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others"
Perhaps this notice board would be a more pleasant and more functional place if there was less attempted schadenfreude flying around from those who should know better. Especially so when those people attacked are not named.
The first incident Pat refers to is a series of private e mails I exchanged with the chair of the standards committee (copied to CS executive but not to other members of the Standards committee) which referred to the rewritten report of the standards committee to the 2012 agm. In that correspondence I pointed out to Dick Heathwood that the 25 page report mentioned in Standards Committee report appeared to be covered by the Data Protection Act and. My request to see that file was refused. I did not threaten to go legal. I did not publicise the contents of the correspondence event on this notice board.
The second incident referred to by Pat and linked to the first in his most recent posting is the use of private e mail addresses in the election campaign for president. These addresses have been acquired from the grading data programme (not by me) and used to contact CS members base (not by me) presumably with the knowledge of the relevant campaign managers (neither is me).
Not being a member of CS I do not have a vote in the election for the CS president. Like most people I have private conversations with my friends on confidential matters. Unlike some people who post here I know more than I post. None of these self evident facts is illegal, immoral or worthy of attack.
The real question to be answered here is this is why are private e mail addresses available to anybody who downloads the grading programme? I have not downloaded the programme to check but there is a danger that children’s email addresses have also been published. Going back to the top of this thread this appears, at first reading, to be against the provisions of the Data Protection Act. This is a question for Chess Scotland officials and members to tackle (not me).