Constitutional Review

[Sigil 1,001]

Seems odd to me, in the age of Optus and Medibank data hacks being in peoples consciousness seems like a weird play and just likely to antagonize a lot of members.  The Club's official statements can easily align with that (and seem to be right now).

That's without really understanding wtf is going on. Can anyone write up a few dot points for us numpties?

Apologies if already covered.

[Adam The God 30,259]

On 10/19/2022 at 10:17 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

They give all that information to sponsors anyway, why would you be furious if it was given to a member to enable a democratic process to proceed? What are you worried is going to be done with an email address?

On 10/19/2022 at 10:20 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Goes straight to spam folder. You don't think these spammers and scammers already have access to databases of email lists (including yours) by other means? It seems a pretty long bow to draw, for those not old enough to remember we used to have giant books thrown on our doorstep with all this personal information included.

On 10/19/2022 at 10:32 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Additionally the main concern with data breaches like Optus and Medibank is around personal sensitive information such as driver's licence details, passport details, banking details, medical details. Not names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses.

Utterly bizarre why some are getting their knickers in a knot. You're not that important. Just delete the email or throw the letter out. It's really not a big deal. But some like to complain just to complain.

On 10/19/2022 at 11:34 PM, Spaghetti said:

I would have thought the difference is obvious.

I consent for my information to be given to sponsors. In fact, I opted out of sponsor emails so I don’t even get those.

Just delete the email, hero.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

It's pretty obvious the Constitution Review is less about getting the Constitution right than it is about advancing his board ambitions. I don't have a problem with his aspirations, but what I do take issue with is that he's trying to destabilize the board to advance his own position.

Of course that's the case. But similar can be said for the Board's proposal

To be clear - I agree with the proposal to increase the Term allowable for President - but this is directly related to advancing Kate Roffey's term as President

Additionally, the changes proposed to the Constitution are pretty limited, a few fluffy wording changes, and making it harder for non-board endorsed candidates to run for Board

Clearly not a comprehensive review aimed at getting the Constitution right

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I would be interested to know whether Lawrence’s attempt to communicate with members is going to have the opposite effect to what he wants.

Quite possibly right, but email over postal address is far more sensible from a Privacy, Cost and Comms perspective  -  but the Board aren't in favour of the Comms aspect

I also found this interesting...

The Club also cannot be in a position where it is seen to either endorse views of any member in such circumstances

The Board was happy to actively campaign against a candidate at the last election - pretty happy to endorse views of some members back then...

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

On 10/19/2022 at 9:09 PM, Lord Nev said:

Rubbish.

Catch up on the 21st century and data privacy mate.

"Mate"... give us a spell, we both know that ain't happening... Pal!

Perhaps you can catch the Judge up on 21st Century privacy when you get a chance

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Perhaps you can catch the Judge up on 21st Century privacy when you get a chance

Definitely seems like the judge needs it.

Would seem most  supporters have the same concerns judging by the  reaction on socials and report from the club about the complaints.

Have a look here...

 

[Spaghetti 264]

12 minutes ago, A F said:

Just delete the email, hero.

You sound like the type of person who would defend government surveillance of their own citizens with “you shouldn’t care if you have nothing to hide”.

You are clueless, champ.

[Adam The God 30,259]

4 minutes ago, Spaghetti said:

You sound like the type of person who would defend government surveillance of their own citizens with “you shouldn’t care if you have nothing to hide”.

You are clueless, champ.

You sound like a libertarian. The type of person that is paranoid about everything. It's not your bank account, it's your email address. Get a grip.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Would seem most  supporters have the same concerns judging by the  reaction on socials and report from the club about the complaints.

The Club didn't provide any Stats as to calls or Feedback in the consultation period that was against the Board's view in their email...

Also I'm sure most supporters wouldn't want any information provided - I would prefer none provided

But that's not the issue here

The issue here is that the process the Club has run is governed in a way that requires information to be given out if requested. The Court has ruled email should be given, that's the fact now... Pal!

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The Club didn't provide any Stats as to calls or Feedback in the consultation period that was against the Board's view in their email...

Also I'm sure most supporters wouldn't want any information provided - I would prefer none provided

But that's not the issue here

The issue here is that the process the Club has run is governed in a way that requires information to be given out if requested. The Court has ruled email should be given, that's the fact now... Pal!

So, you didn't want your information provided, but now that a judge said it can be you're happy to do so?

I'm concerned about the whole thing. I wasn't aware of the conditions in the current corporate act that meant my address would be given out so freely, as I've not encountered this type of behaviour  from a fellow member before.

Lawrence has come out of this looking terrible an has damaged any chance he had of bringing forth the changes he wanted.

But not just that, he's been a  disruption to the club when we already have other ego-driven disruptive agendas to deal with, and has cost the club money - which comes from us. Just a shambles all round.

[BDA 22,755]

I think some posters here know Peter Lawrence and reckon he’s on the level. I’ll take their word for it.

I will say though, everything he has done up to now demonstrates to me that he should not be on the board

Not winning support for his nomination from the current board. Shows he doesn’t know how it works

Challenging a board that has delivered a premiership. There’s no appetite for change so why push?

Taking the club to court and wasting our money. Way to endear yourself to us members

He might be well meaning but his judgment and timing are way off

I think he’s clueless to be honest

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

12 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Just a shambles all round

Maybe we can agree on something... Champ!

To be clear, my beef with the whole situation started with the Board actively campaigning against a member  -  as I've stated numerous times on here. Without that action, I'd probably have remained unconcerned with the whole topic. I'd never heard of Lawrence before his candidacy and probably would've forgotten him by now without the Boards campaigning, like I've forgotten the others...

The proposal to make Nominations for Board harder further irked me further... So yes, I'd prefer my details weren't sent out, and that the Board had excluded those specific proposal

However I was aware of the workings of a Club when I paid my subs this year and previous years, and in hindsight I would still have chosen to be a member and accept those workings... Like accepting that the Privacy Policy allows the disclosure of personal information to many different parties at the clubs discretion...

[Satan 2,871]

Voldermort can leave the room

[chookrat 4,250]

7 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Maybe we can agree on something... Champ!

To be clear, my beef with the whole situation started with the Board actively campaigning against a member  -  as I've stated numerous times on here. Without that action, I'd probably have remained unconcerned with the whole topic. I'd never heard of Lawrence before his candidacy and probably would've forgotten him by now without the Boards campaigning, like I've forgotten the others...

The proposal to make Nominations for Board harder further irked me further... So yes, I'd prefer my details weren't sent out, and that the Board had excluded those specific proposal

However I was aware of the workings of a Club when I paid my subs this year and previous years, and in hindsight I would still have chosen to be a member and accept those workings... Like accepting that the Privacy Policy allows the disclosure of personal information to many different parties at the clubs discretion...

Graeme Yeats, there is a difference between the club sharing our details and another member. As a Corporation the club is governed by the Privacy Act and provisions re how they handle personal data.  There is no such provision for how an individual handles personal data.

Can any the lawyers on here advise what (if any) recourse we have should Peter handle our personal data in a manner that it ends up being published on the internet. If our names and addresses appear in a list along with our email address then all it takes is for someone to cross reference it with another list linking our email address to other personal data and all of a sudden we are in a situation where identify theft is a real possibility.

In my view the Supreme Court has been careless in this instance and should have insisted personal data be handled by a third party with processes to ensure personal data is appropriately managed and destroyed once its purpose is achieved.

[Deemania since 56 6,639]

On 7/20/2022 at 4:14 PM, The heart beats true said:

Lower your expectations. You can’t always get what you want.

If you can't always get what you want and you can't get no satisfaction, I guess you're left with sitting watching the children play as tears go by? 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Deemania since 56

[daisycutter 29,616]

5 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

If you can't always get what you want and you can't get no satisfaction, I guess you're left with sitting watching the children play as tears go by? 

it's all a highway to hell anyway, ds56 😲

[The Jackson FIX 3,114]

16 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Your data is given to sponsors 

It is ‘used’ by sponsors, not ‘given to’. They never have it in their hands, it is either accessed in an encrypted  and de-identified manner by a data platform (like a DMP) for things like targeted banner ads or the club sends out comms on behalf of our partners.
 

This scenario where a member receives the data for the purpose of executing a direct mail or email campaign themselves is different (although i admit I do not know how the club were required to share the data).

Edited October 21, 2022 by The Jackson FIX

[Satan 2,871]

From the age

The decision could have wider application as clubs hold membership details including email addresses and credit card details on the AFL’s server, the league-wide database of club members. Although the court limited the access of details for proper purposes it opened the question as to what consisted of the register for polling purposes. The application of costs would be determined next week.

 

lets tell the russian bots on the age who to hack next

Edited October 21, 2022 by Satan

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

 

[daisycutter 29,616]

24 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

 

[rjay 24,928]

23 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

 

It's pretty obvious you have an agenda here 'Lord'

If the board were open and transparent to start with this whole thing never would have gone to court.

They haven't been and that's a cause for concern.

[Satan 2,871]

25 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

 

And any spammer  now will get a third party to become a member of any club  wait for an election do a voldermort  , go to court get emails under false pretences  and goes spam

[Lord Nev 13,512]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

It's pretty obvious you have an agenda here 'Lord'

If the board were open and transparent to start with this whole thing never would have gone to court.

They haven't been and that's a cause for concern.

My 'agenda' is how Lawrence has gone about all this.

I had absolutely no problem with his 'Deemocracy' stuff, him being able to throw up suggestions etc, go for it, by all reports he's paid his dues as a member  and more than has the right to have a say. But using (frankly; outdated) regulations to obtain personal addresses is a massive concern for me and has totally put me off side.

I would have been far more concerned had the board just handed over all the collected data to some random supporter who has made no mention of how they will use the data, how they will store it and how accessible it will be. Going by his twitter and website he doesn't seem the most technology savvy person.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Lord Nev

[No10 461]

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

There seems to be a little inconsistency between the Club’s version of events and Lawrence’s. 

Lawrence is quoted in The Age as saying: 

“We were very conscious of data privacy. I don’t want members’ details, either email or postal addresses...so we said ‘if you don’t want to give us the register let us at least send our message out’ and they said ‘no’,”

The Club’s email says:

“At the Supreme Court hearing the Club offered that should the Court find in the member’s favour regarding the provision of member email addresses, that the Club could facilitate the circulation of this email on their behalf. This offer was rejected by the member.”

I’m not sure these can both be accurate.

Both can be true.

Lawrence requested the club handle correspondence prior to the decision.

Their positions changed post decision.

As @Its Time for Another rather elegantly put, the precedent set by agreeing to communicating any members view to their mailing list could be problematic.

In terms of the hysteria on privacy, you don’t have to agree with him but isn’t it preferable that a member this passionate about their views can be heard?

Personally, I support the board on this occasion.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

4 minutes ago, No10 said:

In terms of the hysteria on privacy, you don’t have to agree with him but isn’t it preferable that a member this passionate about their views can be heard?

He's already able to be heard. He has a whole website for it. No one has stopped him being heard.

The club shouldn't have to facilitate communication for them using the data they have obtained through appropriate means.

[rjay 24,928]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

He's already able to be heard. He has a whole website for it. No one has stopped him being heard.

The club shouldn't have to facilitate communication for them using the data they have obtained through appropriate means.

The board haven't obtained data through appropriate means and they aren't the club.

Their job is to oversee the club.

I would think it appropriate that they allow the club to facilitate a flow of information to members when important issues come to a vote.

That would seem good governance.

What do they have to hide?

Wouldn't it be better if the arguments of the different cases were fairly put before us members so as we can make an informed decision?