Not much to it and as long as the sp does not dip to $14, I should not concern myself with it :)
Printable View
Not much to it and as long as the sp does not dip to $14, I should not concern myself with it :)
Are you kidding ? I don't think many of Xero's customers will be concerned whether SP is $10, $14 or $20. But I suggest most of them will want their financial data kept private. Not handed over willy nilly and them then being lied to about it
Discl. Not holding but a concerned customer
This looked like an interesting story until I saw that both Rodney Hide and Whale oil are involved in pushing it. Both will quite happily mold a story to suit their own interests.
I hadn't known until now that Rodney was writing for NBR but I had read some of his Herald articles in the past. I would read these articles for a laugh to see what crazy uncle Rodney was writing about this week but not for any factual content. And don't get me started on Whale Oil.
I accept that Rod Drury has a financial interest in making this story go away so his credibility is a little questionable too but given past history I would trust him over Rodney Hide and Whale Oil any day.
I'm willing to be proven wrong here as the story does look dodgy on the face of it but I'm not a lawyer so have no idea about the legal requirements.
Xero have stuff up-ed'. They should have just said they are reviewing their proceedures and going forward, they will not release information unless required too. Simple and short.
In the case in question, three may have been some confusion as to whether they were required to by law - given the guy is a multi bankrupt, most of his money probably is hidden in his wife's name but for some reason, the law doesn't quite extend to opening up her books to.
The info was release to the Offical Assignee, not a scammer so they should have been able to deal with it much better.
"open letter" to Rod Drury as found on Whaleoil site:
Dear Rod
I am your customer and have been for a long time.
I admire you for taking an idea and turning it into a large corporation. Now I am watching aghast as you surrender your values and integrity to preserve a corporate image. Instead of standing up for the little guy, you are sticking it to them. You stand with the State, not the citizen.
You promised both contractually and in many, many media statements to protect my privacy . Then, without telling me, you handed out my personal financial information to a State agency. And when I approached your company, after my suspicions were raised, your company simply lied to me.
Once I had established your company had released my private and personal financial information, you then stonewalled me. You never returned my calls or answered my simple, reasonable questions. It seems you are now so big you don’t have to care about a single customer. You have resorted to bully-boy tactics.
All I ever wanted to know was:
1. Why did your company hand my personal financial information out?
2. What exactly did your company hand out?
3. Why did your company not tell me my information was to be handed out?
4. Why wasn’t I told the truth when I made an inquiry about the safety of my information?
5. Why are you now ignoring me and trying to bully me to silence?
With this letter I give you my authority to tell Whaleoil readers the answers to these reasonable questions. Tell me — and them — exactly what statutory obligations overcame all your privacy assurances made over many years in public and the corporate policy you say your company proudly champions.
To be precise: What is the statutory obligation that forced your company to hand out my private and personal information held on my behalf by your company without telling me?
As you well know, I have asked for these simple questions to be answered many times over the last four months. You have continually refused to answer them. Your attitude toward me speaks volumes of the collapse of your and your company’s ethics. I am saddened and disappointed.
Kristina Buxton
Your Customer.
In light of the current fascination with the misappropriation of personal information, I would be really interested to hear what Xero have to say. I would also be interested to hear from the "state agency".
I suspect that once we have the views of the complainant, Xero, and the "state agency" out in the open, we will be able to make an informed assessment. I rather think that in this case a refusal to comment will be as good as a comment.
Until then, I am more than happy to indulge in the wildest speculation. And to read between what I think are the lines. . .
As well as improving their policy on data, I would also have a policy not to respond to WhaleOil website. This issue should have stayed on NBR. using WhailOil means it will be forgotten.
The Xero Privacy policy - excerpt:
"Xero only discloses Your Personal Information in limited circumstances
Xero will only disclose the personal information You have provided to us to entities outside the Xero group of companies if it is necessary and appropriate to facilitate the purpose for which Your personal information was collected pursuant to this Policy, including the provision of the Service.
Xero will not otherwise disclose Your personal information to a third party unless You have provided Your express consent. However, You should be aware that Xero may be required to disclose Your personal information without Your consent in order to comply with any court orders, subpoenas, or other legal process or investigation including by tax authorities, if such disclosure is required by law. Where possible and appropriate, we will notify You if we are required by law to disclose Your personal information."
I suspect that "...other legal process ..." is broader than many of us would like. And broader than some of us fully understand.
What about the ''we will notify you''bit