I can highly recommend one of the BT call blocker phones. Mine is set to only allow calls with a revealed number straight through. Calls with a withheld number must ‘announce’ themselves and you can accept or not. Since I’ve had this my scam/spam calls have dropped to pretty much zero. You can also set it to require announcement for calls from any numbers not in the contacts programmed into the phone. My mum has hers set to this but it’s not practical for me where I have a lot of business calls coming in. It really does do the job where I have found TPS inadequate.
I’m relieved that it wasn’t a serious problem AND the Society were quick enough to tell us there was nothing to worry about.
So for the Scots - the English.
And for the English - the Scots.
Happy atop my piece of Larchlap.
This suggests that TWS has transferred members’ emails to an outside company. What precautions has it taken?
Presumably all that are required per GDPR (i.e. quite a lot)
I suggest that you email and get an answer.
I am already involved in one series of complaints (failure to tell me that an order would not be ready for collection; sending the order out for delivery when it did come in, although we had agreed another date for collection, with another order; failure to answer emails). I will ask about this, but will wait until the current problem is solved. I hope someone else will follow it up. I admire @danchaq’s optimism.
Having been involved (not in the detail, thankfully) with GDPR work in the run-up to implementation, I don’t think it optimism. The requirements are stringent and the penalties meaningful.
EDIT: But by all means, do follow up yourself if you feel the need. It’s your data after all, no one else’s.
To err is to be human, to really foul things up… takes a computer. Thought the old adage deserved to get out once again.
Out of curiosity… don’t they do ‘sandbox’ trial runs of new code any more ?
You would guess that the new TWS site is in a test environment but it’s been integrated with a production environment of the review platform. The test TWS site has our real data in there and perhaps that’s where the issue lay.
That, or someone forgot to flip the
development/live switch on the review platform.
Either way, I’m sure there’s a mortified developer out there somewhere.
Not sure it’s just optimism, it’s the law!
And this doesn’t mean any data has been transferred, it’s possible to integrate a third party software without actually transferring data by using the tools provided.
I also received a couple for Champagne too… nothing from TWS afterwards though.
Yes, I have been involved and I know A: that it is complicated and B: that most people don’t think about it before pressing ‘copy all’. I haven’t had any of the messages, but if the ‘third party’ really asked the recipient to click through to ANY site, rather than logging into the Wine Society site, and going from there, then TWS should not be dealing with them.
You are correct a neighbour from the old house had terrible problems with these calls and did what you have done, I shall have to do the same, but what an indictment of the world we live in that we have to do that, many who are getting on in life and don’t have the wherewithal can easily fall prey to these a*******
Even that route is not 100% as our surgery if they honour you with phone at all have a withheld number.
We were getting so many mainly automated calls from “Amazon.com” or “Your internet service provider” that we set all calls to go directly to the answering machine, with a message to the effect of “leave a message or call our mobiles”. We don’t get disturbed and if it’s urgent or important we find out soon enough.
Of course these people, so far, don’t seem to call mobile numbers, but if they do we’ll have to think of something else
As do the police and many banks. But that’s okay as an automated message asks them to give their name, then the phone rings and you get to hear them and can accept the call. The scam callers never leave their name and the automated scam calls cannot even do so!
I guess my point is the issues are separate. An unsolicited email does not necessarily mean this company has your personal data without your permission, although it might.
Like others here I got one of these emails, was suspicious, didn’t click. Poor form and has caused concern how some third party has contacted me, do they have my data etc. Thanks to the Community I have some level of relief, and by these accounts, it was a mistake which is being owned. However like @Leah I have not received anything from TWS by way of explanation, so I am not yet satisfied.
Teething issues with integration aside (which is what this is likely to be), that does not mean TWS are wrong to use a third party to process reviews. This is extremely common practice, there are specialists in this area, and the technology is proven. As @Winestwit says, there are ways to do this without passing your data on to the supplier. In fact, that is the normal integration precisely because it make complying with GDPR more robust.
If there has been a data breach the ICO must be notified and a penalty of up to 4% of turnover can be applied. I’m not sure it’s so much blind optimism on my part, more that companies tend to take this seriously.
As to whether or not TWS should or should not go down this route, we are not sighted on all the reasons for the decision but the many discussions on reviews suggest members want improved functionality and this might be one way to get there.
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Preview: What to Expect from our New Website