JKUIL 0 Posted April 23, 2012 [quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]My god.....can this world get anymore pathetic?![/quote]Unfortunately yes. How about the LOC approaching Little Chef saying that the name of their "Olympic" breakfast was "unhelpful" and could they change it to something else ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JKUIL 0 Posted April 23, 2012 [quote user="jas the barclay king"]Had the lad who got the pictures have set up a hotmail email address under the name "Mr X" (EG mrx@hotmail), a bogus address (which can be done on hotmail sign up) and logged on from a public access point/cyber cafe/some random computer switched on somehwere the club would still be looking... and could look forever... what people need to accept is that the internet has made everything free, everything accesible, and whilst copyright exists and there are laws to uphold the internet has made it easy to cheat the system in just a few easy clicks... We need to accept it, David McNally needs to accept it, the club needs to accept it.another thought ... so if the club wants to protect their image what woukld stop someone going onto google, entering "Norwich City Football Club" and then saving un official pictures from the image search onto their hard drive?doing a quick search now I have found a picture of captain canary on John clarke Drums web site... an inflatable canary (complete with branding) on photographers direct... a collage of pictures on a site called twibbon....all these are unofficial, I havent been on the sites to check what context they are being used on or how they have been obtained... I could if i wanted save them all via Google without even entering onto the websites.. whilst this is different to the case in question over the last couple of days it does pretty much show how easy it is to "cheat" the system....[/quote]"David McNally needs to accept it" ............. hmm .... I don''t think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted April 23, 2012 My two questions were as innocent as they seemed, I was curious as to the circumstances of how he found the picture. But I''m afraid that you''ve confused me even more, in your first sentance you say that the user is "looking" at the website but then you say ''If you don''t want people to see something, don''t put it on a live site''. The way you''ve explained it they didn''t put it on a live site as when the user was looking at the web site they couldn''t see the picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted April 23, 2012 [quote user="TCCANARY"]My two questions were as innocent as they seemed, I was curious as to the circumstances of how he found the picture. But I''m afraid that you''ve confused me even more, in your first sentance you say that the user is "looking" at the website but then you say ''If you don''t want people to see something, don''t put it on a live site''. The way you''ve explained it they didn''t put it on a live site as when the user was looking at the web site they couldn''t see the picture. [/quote]The image files were put on a production server which is public facing, and can therefore be accessed if someone looks for it. The point is, any confidential images should not be put into a public facing server without adequate security/password permissions in place. These were clearly not in place. Epic NCFC IT Security fail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted April 23, 2012 Since this thread has got revived, there is a point to be made about how the club handled this, and its "climbdown" statement. I have written a fair number of these, so perhaps know to look for. What you often get is what is known as a non-apology apology. Something on the lines of:"Regarding our actions we are sorry for any distress that may have been caused."Which looks like an admission of guilt, but isn''t. And looks like an apology, but isn''t. To say you are sorry for any distress is only admitting some distress may have been caused. It is not accepting blame for - and so apologising for - causing that distress. Now the key part of the club''s statement was:"We are pleased to confirm no action will be taken by the club or the police over the matter. The club also recognises and has listened to the very strong feedback from supporters criticising our initial handling of the matter and this is something we have acknowledged to Mr Brown and his family, and apologised for."Which is not a non-apology apology, but a straightforward apology. To emphasise it McNally later twittered in his capacity as CEO:"the lad has apologised to the club, we apologised for our heavy-handed reaction, I admit we made a mistake, and now we move on."All very sensible. No attempt to slide out of the situation with a non-apology apology. Instead a clear statement that drew a line under the incident, leaving no issues unresolved. It would be fascinating to know quite what went on at Carrow Road that day. A suspicion would be that the original over-reaction came from the executive managemnt in its usual self-proclaimed "ruthless" mode, and that the reversal of policy and the unreserved apology was ordered by the owners once they got to hear of this worldwide PR disaster. Sadly we will probably nver know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted April 23, 2012 [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="TCCANARY"]My two questions were as innocent as they seemed, I was curious as to the circumstances of how he found the picture. But I''m afraid that you''ve confused me even more, in your first sentance you say that the user is "looking" at the website but then you say ''If you don''t want people to see something, don''t put it on a live site''. The way you''ve explained it they didn''t put it on a live site as when the user was looking at the web site they couldn''t see the picture. [/quote]The image files were put on a production server which is public facing, and can therefore be accessed if someone looks for it. The point is, any confidential images should not be put into a public facing server without adequate security/password permissions in place. These were clearly not in place. Epic NCFC IT Security fail.[/quote]The ''if someone looks for it'' bit was my original question, why would you go looking for it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruddygore 0 Posted April 23, 2012 "The ''if someone looks for it'' bit was my original question, why would you go looking for it?"Who knows for sure? Unless Chris Brown really wants to tell us and imo he should just let it lie since he has apologised and the matter is closed then we will never know for sure."Because you can" is as good a guess as any.The Club are satisfied the issue is at an end really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
