Gymbox - PT added me on Facebook

ThumbRemote

marliepanda wrote: »

Like I said, the ICO wouldn’t care less so your suggestion to report it to them is a waste of everyone’s time.

You've made that up. You have no knowledge of the ICO, what they do or what action they would be likely to take. You've literally made up a statement and presented it as though it were true.

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between opinions and facts?

marliepanda

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You've made that up. You have no knowledge of the ICO, what they do or what action they would be likely to take. You've literally made up a statement and presented it as though it were true.

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between opinions and facts?

:rotfl: Okay.

steampowered

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The key words are 'Reasonably expect'. If providing your phone number, you would reasonably expect to be contacted by phone/text - not by any other means. You would also expect to be contacted in a business capacity only.
...
The ICO also makes it clear that any legitimate interest must have "a limited privacy impact", and states "it requires a risk assessment based on the specific context and circumstances to demonstrate that processing is appropriate." which I'd be amazed if it was done.

I would have thought that by providing one's number to a PT and taking a trial session, one might reasonably expect to be contacted to see if there is any interest in arranging follow up sessions.

I don't agree with the suggestion that giving a phone number would imply only being contacted by call or text message, as opposed to other more modern methods publicly linked to phone numbers. I don't really see the difference between a text message and a facebook message. These days the younger generation don't use calls or text messages.

unholyangel

Somehow I very much doubt that the PT has complied with GDPR or even that they're registered as a DPO.

If they were, they would've told OP that they were collecting their data, how they were going to use it, that they were going to disclose it to third parties etc.

Anyway, you wouldn't expect a worker from other places to do it, so why make excuses for the PT? If you gave a restaurant worker your phone number for a reservation, would you expect to be added on facebook? What about your hairdresser/barber? The builder you asked to give you a quote? The BT employee you queried a bill with?

With that being said, its also possible the guy had no idea. Went into facebook app, it asked permission to read his contacts and he gave it. I've had requests from people who imported contact lists, they weren't even aware requests had been sent.

reason2

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You've made that up. You have no knowledge of the ICO, what they do or what action they would be likely to take. You've literally made up a statement and presented it as though it were true.

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between opinions and facts?

i can genuinely say with complete certainty that the ICO would not be interested in this at all.
feel free to continue to tell everyone who doesn't conform to your opinion that they are wrong but it doesn't make them wrong.

ThumbRemote

reason2 wrote: »

i can genuinely say with complete certainty that the ICO would not be interested in this at all.
feel free to continue to tell everyone who doesn't conform to your opinion that they are wrong but it doesn't make them wrong.

You're wrong as well.

The ICO publishes a list of actions they've taken. There are numerous actions against individuals/small businesses.

reason2

fully aware having worked closely with the ICO more times than you have changed underwear.

but to show you how easy and baseless your argument is, i will demonstrate what you are doing.

You are wrong!

see, i have said you are wrong and therefore this must be taken as fact.

the only difference between my post and yours is that mine is actually correct. whilst yours is an opinion you cannot support..

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

Anyway, you wouldn't expect a worker from other places to do it, so why make excuses for the PT? If you gave a restaurant worker your phone number for a reservation, would you expect to be added on facebook? What about your hairdresser/barber? The builder you asked to give you a quote? The BT employee you queried a bill with?

I don't think these examples are relevant.

BT employee you queried a bill with? Clearly not, I think this is a bit of a silly example, same with the restaurant booking, as you would never expect to have further contact with this individual as you were contacting a company, not a person. A PT is clearly a person.

Builder? Again, no, as youre not looking to build a continuing relationship with a builder. They need your number to contact you to quote and arrange the work, but thats it.

Hairdresser would be the only vaguely similar type of relationship, and I know quite a few people who do have their hairdressers on FB as they are good friends. As a rule I wouldnt expect to be added by my hairdresser but I certainly wouldnt freak out and refuse to get my hair cut at the salon again if I did.

I have had personal training and work very very very very PT at my local gym. People build up strong relationships with their trainers, the trainers often have groups to 'show off' their abilities to encourage more people to train with them. I see many FB posts where trainers have tagged their clients saying 'awesome work today' 'X is now squatting 30kg when she could barely do 5kg when we started, awesome progress!' I see lots of bootcamps where they all tag each other to encourage each other.

The OP may not want the above, and thats `100% fine, she can simply decline the add. The overreaction is the issue, NOT the OP not particularly wanting the PT as her FB friend.

reason2

lets try to simplify this..

Person A has facebook, their profile is public, they have their discovery setting to visible.
Person B has facebook, they have their contacts import to facebook.
Person A gives (voluntarily) their phone number to Person B
Person B enters this number in to their phone.
Facebook imports the contacts as per Person B's settings, Person A appears in line with their security settings and a friend request is issued.

Where is the security breach? Where is the GDPR issue and why would the ICO care that person A has not sufficiently updated their security settings in line with what they want.

waamo

This is starting to sound like a squabble between 12 year olds.

"I'm telling on you".
"Go on they won't care".
"Will so"