Brexit dividend? 'Newly independent' UK will be world's 'data hub', claims digital minister Britain's digital minister says the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is "limiting the potential of our businesses," and is vowing to cut data protection "red tape," for the "newly independent nation free of EU bureaucracy." The recently appointed Michelle Donelan said the UK planned to "seize this post-Brexit …
The main aim is to wave a paper at people shouting "WE GOT BREXSHIT DONE".
"How?"
"BY CUTTING RED TAPE FROM BRUSSELS!"
"But I'm a multi-national, so now I have to adhere to GDPR and whatever you've done? How does this benefit me?"
"IT GETS BREXSHIT DONE!"
"But it's costing me mor..."
"GET OUT OF MY WAY YOU ANTI-GROWTH SCUM BAG!"
Quite, removing GDPR doesn't make it cheaper to do business and adding more rules (relaxed or not) makes it more expensive.
I don't want this country as a data hub it just means we'll be in the news more and more for data breaches and that'll be embarrassing.
Remember if you don't store it, it can't be stolen.
If you look at what is needed now to move data to US you know it's a lot more of red tape - not less. As soon as some authorities told Google Analytics wasn't GDPR compliant without a lot of efforts from site owners, they simply dropped it, and moved to systems storing and analyzing data locally.
UK might become a "data hub" for third world countries, maybe - while US data hoarders won't have any incentive to store data UK - they will just move UK data to US....
Hmmm....
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of scientific research (including references to processing for
“scientific research purposes”) are references to processing for the purposes of
any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or
privately funded, including processing for the purposes of technological
development or demonstration, fundamental research or applied research. "
I reckon "technological development or demonstration" gives a very broad definition of "scientific research". Like... writing a website on the origami might even qualify.
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of historical research (including references to processing for
“historical research purposes”) include processing for the purposes of
genealogical research. "
So Ancestry.com is now to be considered on a par with the National Archives/...?
"Remember if you don't store it, it can't be stolen."
That needed repeating. Why is it that only those have been in technology a lifetime can see this?
There needs to a real value put on storing someone's personal details, £1000 for a passport. £800 for a driving licence, and if companies/Government lose that info, they pay up and go bankrupt if necessary, it's the only way to stop it being collected and stored without due care. And each copy taken should be watermarked with who took collected that info and when, if necessary using steganography.
I'm so against what the pontificating clueless political #hashtags of this world stand for, (everyone here knows who I'm talking about, her presence lingers on even after she's long left Government, but best to see her and others as a clueless political 'blob' with zero understanding of the consequences they are proposing here).
It will cause so much polarizing of society, saying that, we're probably already past that point. The analogue world is being taken out of life, decisions are now 'Yes or 'No'.
It will cause so much polarizing of society, saying that, we're probably already past that point. The analogue world is being taken out of life, decisions are now 'Yes or 'No'.
I think that's just human nature. Thinking in 'black or white', 'yes or no' takes less mental effort than seeing nuances and multiple sides of things. It's very similar to 'pigeon holing' where someone is categorised by one or two actions. This last seems particularly common with crime where a lot of people seem to think that 'a criminal' is a type of human and that everything they do must therefore be bad.
@gandalfcn
"woosh"
Oops sorry didnt mean to make it so complicated. Let me try to explain to you. Its normal for businesses trading with another country to have to follow the rules of that country. Do you see the reverse yet? Those not trading with the foreign country... dont!!!
I thought that as well. In the context of the poster's previous comments, I'd say it was pretty clear that it *was* sarcastic.
But I miss the days when you could take for granted stuff like this *was* a joke- or an intentionally obvious troll- without having to check. Yeah, I know that Poe's Law and the winking smiley go back decades, but today there definitely seem to be way more people who could parrot shite like this online and genuinely believe it.
Even if the sentiment of voters had changed and voted differently in a "should we undo Brexit" referendum, would that really change anything? Would the EU permit the UK to go back to their old arrangement, or would they say "you're either all in or you're all out, we won't go back to your 'halfway in' special deal you had before"?
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote. Surely a supermajority should have been required for such a major change, and should be required for the UK to someday join the EU in full if that's what it decides. To do that on a majority vote risks a majority vote going the other direction a few years later if political winds shift.
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote. Surely a supermajority should have been required for such a major change
That wasn't necessary because it was, as agreed by parliament, purely an advisory referendum. It was only intended to guide the supposedly sane souls in parliament on what would then be done.
It was only when the Tory government and the brextremists got together and invented this "will of the people" bullshit, decided that advisory referendum was going to be legally binding, did it all go to shit.
Had people known that was going to happen the vote would have likely gone the other way.
Which is how it's done in Switzerland (and needs a majority of the cantons, so decisions are not biased by towns having a higher population density).
But a) The UK has very little experience of running referendums. b) Cameron was a gormless f**ktard who was p**sing himself at the prospect of Farage hoovering up his back bench majority. In a documentary on Farage he admits the party actually had enough funds for about 15 constituencies (out of 635). No wonder the Johnson told him to p**soff.
A classic case of the Tory elephant stampeeded by the UKIP mouse.
There is a conspriacy theory that it also stopped the UK from complying with tighter money laundering rules, but surely not.
I've found one quitter (who finally admitted they voted Leave) give me an actual reason he did so.
He's a slumlord and reckoned the worsening economic situation would create more potential tenants for his properties.
First one I've found to give a coherent explanation.
Only took 6 years to find one.
The biggest problem with Brexit was making it about a simple majority vote.
It was that, and not defining what the vote was actually for. Reducing it to "leave or not," with no detail about how or what we would be leaving, and what we would do instead. Well, I say "no detail", more like "lots of details, all contradictory, and tailored to win over your audience".
For some, it was about "cutting red tape" (we've ended up with more). To others it was about reducing immigration, to others, about reducing non-white immigration (the "I'm not racist but" vote), to others it was about increasing non-white immigration (communities in places like Birmingham who wanted to be able to bring in family members from the Indian subcontinent more easily). To others still, it was about "taking back control" (of what, from whom, by whom, you might ask, it was all neatly unspecified). For some, it was "sovereignty" and "making our own laws" (something we'd never lost), and for yet others, just down to a general sense of malaise that something had to change, and the campaign exploited this to divert their attention away from being robbed by Tory austerity.
There was no manifesto, no "this is how we will leave", "these are the institutions we will leave", "this is what will replace them", or indeed, "this is how we will bear the cost of the replacements rather than splitting them 28 ways". Just sunlit uplands and unicorns.
Of course not.
And anyone who's seen "Brexit: The Uncivil War" will know exactly why.
Dominc Cummings knew that once they got into spelling out details of any specific path they'd loose a whole bunch of quitters who'd suddenly realize that a) Their particular fantasy Brexit (7 options, or was it 9?) wasn't going to happen b) S**t was going to get a lot tougher for them.
Literally the only thing this (loose) coalition of the delusional, gullible and flat out greedy did agree on was they wanted (for all sorts of reasons, most of which made no logical sense outside their own heads) to leave the EU.
And with the Johnson he had the perfect sock puppet for the job. Someone who'd as happily spout on about the "Sunlit uplands" as he would explaining (for example) of the absolute necessity to bayonet babies and with as little regard for the consequences. A completely empty jug that could (and still does) make a great deal of noise.
@John Smith 19
"Literally the only thing this (loose) coalition of the delusional, gullible and flat out greedy did agree on was they wanted (for all sorts of reasons, most of which made no logical sense outside their own heads) to leave the EU."
Do I guess your still butt hurt we left?
Fixing the "overemphasis on consent" would be easy. Pass a law that says necessary* cookies only must be the default when a website loads. Ban pop-ups requesting consent for other cookies, and leave it to the user to search in the website's settings for the switch to turn on the other cookies, should they wish to.
*"Necessary" would be carefully defined in the law, of course, to prevent scumbag sites defining all tracking and ad cookies as necessary.
But, as with so many things, confusing the two is being used to push for changes that don't relate to people's perceived problem. "Don't you hate that websites keep asking you about cookies? Well, we're going to remove that consent red tape from GDPR to make it go away."
(And of course, yes, the correct response to being annoyed about websites asking for consent for tracking cookies all the time is to ask why they need to track you in the first place.)
Indeed, it's the consent to having your data collected, stored, processed in some way, and retained.
I'd suggest that if the need to gain consent to this is "overly complex", then this probably indicates that the entity gathering the data is sneakily trying to use it for multiple purposes, some of which are legitimate, but most of which are to do with targeting advertising.
The solution is simple; legislate for two types of consent. One for consenting to your data being collected and used for the core business purpose, and one for allowing it to be used for commercial purposes, which is off by default, and requires the user to seek it out and explicitly opt in.
For example, I'm fine with consenting to give my details to the DVLA for the purposes of renewing my driving license. They shouldn't require me to choose whether to consent to selling any information onto google for advertising purposes in order to renew my driving license, and if they would like me to do so, the request for me to consent should not block other functionality that I have already consented to.
I get the sense that what the government desires is essentially the opposite of this; invisible opting-in which would require me to go and find the settings to opt out.
"Necessary" would be carefully defined in the law, of course, to prevent scumbag sites defining all tracking and ad cookies as necessary.
I hate the weasel words of "legitimate interest" and related cookies being enabled by default so you have to untick zillions of boxes. No advertiser has any legitimate interest as far as I'm concerned because I've got Do Not Track enabled, so they can just fuck off.
If the data protection provisions in the UK are weakened, then I just won't leave me personal data there. I won't do business with any business in the UK that does not abide by the GDPR (or stronger) and leaves my data in the UK.
I say this as a non-UK resident and citizen. So, UK businesses lose out.
THAT, is the real dividend of Brexit.
