: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:30 pm  

He will be sacked for gross misconduct.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:38 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

Do you scan every thread on this message board for anti-Saints stuff?

Nah only have to read through a topic and spot your name and I know it will be something to do with Saints. Im pretty sure you have found a way to link us to the starting of the 2nd World War.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:11 pm  

JLM23 wrote:

Nah only have to read through a topic and spot your name and I know it will be something to do with Saints. Im pretty sure you have found a way to link us to the starting of the 2nd World War.

You need to find a more rewarding way to unload all that obsessive energy. At least I only spend 23 hours in each day trawling through my own club's board.

Anyway, conversation over for now. I've made my very valid point and your kneejerk objection to it is noted. To carry on would derail the thread.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:07 am  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

So do you have access to the personal details of other employees in the organisation you work for?

yes, but not through any lapse in the data security proceedures at our place, but because I have been to people's houses to pick them up or for social events, I have their phone numbers etc etc

There are only 5 full time refs, one of which is Silverwood - it is very likely that he knows the other 4 refs on a social basis and therefore knows their home addresses and phone numbers etc...

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:15 am  

To be honest who would want to be a referee - rugby league supporters in general are terrible towards referees considering they are paid a lot less than their football counterparts. Whether they are good or crap somebody has to referee the game.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:19 am  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

yes, but not through any lapse in the data security proceedures at our place, but because I have been to people's houses to pick them up or for social events, I have their phone numbers etc etc

There are only 5 full time refs, one of which is Silverwood - it is very likely that he knows the other 4 refs on a social basis and therefore knows their home addresses and phone numbers etc...

I'll emphasise the relevant bit again:

an alleged breach of IT policy

Why would the RFL suspend him for a breach if IT policy if he's supplied details because he knows where they live etc from social contact?

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:13 am  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

There are only 5 full time refs, one of which is Silverwood - it is very likely that he knows the other 4 refs on a social basis and therefore knows their home addresses and phone numbers etc...

I would have thought that the most likely to be the case myself.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:50 am  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

Why would the RFL suspend him for a breach if IT policy if he's supplied details because he knows where they live etc from social contact?

Data security is not solely restricted to technology based breaches.

At my company, data security comes under the IT policy but is not solely restricted to technology related breaches. In reality it is an Information Systems policy, rather than an Information Technology policy, but is nearly always named incorrectly, as I suspect it will be at the RFL.

The type of breach would come under the IT (IS) policy at my company.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:23 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

Data security is not solely restricted to technology based breaches.

At my company, data security comes under the IT policy but is not solely restricted to technology related breaches. In reality it is an Information Systems policy, rather than an Information Technology policy, but is nearly always named incorrectly, as I suspect it will be at the RFL.

The type of breach would come under the IT (IS) policy at my company.

I'm aware of the distinction, but the point is he's been suspended for alleged breach of IT (or data security etc) policy, not for supplying names and details because of social contact. If they've suspended him for the wrong reason he'll have them over a barrel.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:02 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

I'm aware of the distinction, but the point is he's been suspended for alleged breach of IT (or data security etc) policy, not for supplying names and details because of social contact. If they've suspended him for the wrong reason he'll have them over a barrel.

Passing on the information is the breach of policy. It doesnt really matter how he got the information, he broke the Data Protection Act by passing information about colleagues on to a third party without their permission. Under most circumstances it wouldnt matter (or be complained about) - I have passed on colleagues phone numbers to third parties without their permission - but obviously someone has complained about it on this occasion.