Algorithms, Henry VIII powers, dodgy 1-man-firms: Reg strokes claw over Data Protection Bill The House of Lords will today start poring over the UK’s Data Protection Bill, line by line, as it enters committee stage. The peers have to agree to every one of the 194 clauses in the bill and debate 32 pages' worth of amendments, so it's no surprise this stage can often take more than seven days to complete. The bill, …
Goverment wants to hold all the cards and avoid responsibilty for failures, accidental or on purpose, who would have thought. Any chance they could all if people like ATOS lie on PIP assessments they will be charged with fruad being added to the bill?
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/atos-nurse-lied-about-pip-claimant-attending-assessment-alone/
One of the compounding factors is the governments determination that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights doesn't make it to domestic law after Brexit (not that it could in its entirety as there are parts that are exclusively relevant to EU membership). There's another amendment which seeks to put the Article 8 principles relating to the protection of personal data back into UK law, and requiring the rest of the bill be interepreted in that context. Not sure why that should be contentious.
Just because the system can be exploited/open to abuse doesn't mean the benefits of implement such system should be ignored. As long as things are tracable and transparent, I say give the security researchers the BOD.
You have to have faith i nthe system...Exactly like how MPs can't be lobbied and parlimentary votes bought right? :|
I've already started taking companies to court under the DPA and will continue to do so under the GDPR. My main focus in on unwanted direct marketing and it's likely that the no win, no fee solicitors will be jumping on this gravy train once the GDPR comes into force.
Organisations should stop using e-mails, texts and phone calls as a means of getting in touch with potential new customers. It doesn't really work and it will soon be fraught with danger. I've settled out of court on many occasions.
When it was introduced, the focus was on the creation of new criminal offences in the UK, including for re-identification of de-identified personal data
Does criminalising the re-identification of de-identified personal data not create conflict in State and Non-State Actor Witness Protection Programs offering Specific Exemptions for security researchers?
Such is most certainly a retrograde step which will not be allowed to happen .... in any shape or phorm.
This includes a new clause that would grant someone the right to information about individual decisions made by public bodies based on algorithmic profiling.
I second that amendment and facility.
And this is a Master Stroke, methinks ...... There is also an amendment that says that a decision is "based solely on automated processing" if there is "no meaningful input by a natural person" - a definition that has been lacking in previous rules.
Man vs AIMachines ..... in Greater IntelAIgent Games Plays ...... Augmented Virtual Realities which Driver NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT Command with Quantum Communication Controls
cc .... CryptoniteNXT [who appear to be proactive in the field] ..... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/30/cryptonite/
Surely you cannot reasonably think the Future will not be completely different from the Past. When the Present is a blank canvas for painting, what would you like to Realise?
Use your imagination for something new and share it and it is considered for Future Program Inclusion.
I'm sure all these 100s of put-out-to-pasture former MPs and party donors and bishops will be able to understand all the consequences and complexities of such an incredibly complicated bit of replacement legislation which of course absolutely won't have anything snuck into it by the government that is a bad idea. Of course they will. They've got Dame Martha "lastminute.com" Lane Fox to explain it all to them.
Of course they will. They've got Dame Martha "lastminute.com" Lane Fox to explain it all to them.
They certainly will.
There are much sharper knives in that box than DMLF. In fact they're a good argument against elected legislators. What we really need are ex officio appointments of people who know what they're talking about like, say Presidents or equivalent of the Roy Soc, chartered professional institutions (a year or two ago I'd have added University VCs but that role seems to have turned into a gravy train); the HoL would be just the place. Then put it on equal footing with the HoC when it comes to passing legislation. We might even get to the position where the main parties have to compete and select candidates who also know what they're talking about.
"What we really need are ex officio appointments of people who know what they're talking about "
I'd like to see an elected House of Lords where everyone has one vote and political parties are banned, but everyone can use their one vote in a not for profit organisation they belong to. The National Trust, the RSPB, various religions and professional bodies would all end up with peers. The engineering professions, accountants, medicine and so on would all put people in the HoL, which would cause Gove to die of shock at all the experts in one place.
I know it's a ridiculous fantasy too.
These new regulations could potentially pose a serious problem for democracy, especially local democracy. At present political parties can collect and use e-mail addresses with a relatively simple disclaimer on a form, and provided all the expected unsubscribe options are offered. After GDPR it is likely that explicit permission would be needed for every separate use of an e-mail address.
The upshot of this is that it would become far harder for political parties to communicate directly with the public and instead news organisations would effectively become the only source of information. The problem of editors distorting or ignoring anything they don't like is obvious. Local politics would suffer most as it is rarely deemed that newsworthy anyway.
" At present political parties can collect and use e-mail addresses with a relatively simple disclaimer on a form, and provided all the expected unsubscribe options are offered."
What form? I've never filled in any form giving politicians, local or otherwise my email address nor would I.
"After GDPR it is likely that explicit permission would be needed for every separate use of an e-mail address."
I don't see how you arrive at such a conclusion. If you were to tick a box that said, in effect, "Spam me" then whatever organisation you were dealing with would have your permission to keep spamming until you told them to stop. If, however, you were to email your MP about a specific issue then it's reasonable that the MP would have to have ask for separate, informed consent to spam you and if this meant that your email address would actually be passed to local and/or national party HQ for spamming purposes then that would have to be stated explicitly.
"it would become far harder for political parties to communicate directly with the public"
The only thing that would be made harder by making collection of email addresses would be spamming. And there's only one way in which spamming would improve the democratic process - it would tell voters which parties to avoid. Any candidate who tried to "engage" me that way would be granted a swift lesson in rules of engagement.
If a candidate wants to communicate with the public they can get out there and talk face-to-face so they can have their fallacies explained to them. I don't think there's anything in GDPR to prevent that.
"Any candidate who tried to "engage" me that way would be granted a swift lesson in rules of engagement."
The easiest lesson to give being this: Recipients pay for their email. Therefore you are engaging in cost-shifted advertising - and that is why people object to unsolicted email advertising.
If they bluster, then you can add these arguements:
1: The full value of such advertising is not being accounted for in spending declarations.
2: _all_ UK ISP acceptable use policies prohibit the activity and THEIR suppliers prohibit it too.
If you decide to sidestep by sending from an foreign ISP with an AUP prohibiting the sending of UCE (almost all of them) then you may be committing an extraditable criminal offence depending ont he country.
3: Getting someone else to send on your behalf does not make you any less liable.
4: The ability to send email is based on the receivers deciding to accept it. Unless you have a contract with the company operating the receiving mailserver, you have no rights to expect delivery and no comeback if they refuse messages from you. Email systems are entirely discretionary in their operation.
5: If you spam, you are likely to find yourself blacklisted for a whlie by thousands of mailserver operators. Making threats or demands to be removed them is likely to make such blocks permanent and even more widespread.
6: See https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/737/french-government-provides-spam-lists
"Any candidate who tried to "engage" me that way would be granted a swift lesson in rules of engagement."
Well, at least it's swift - we always try to get away from people like you as quickly as possible. You might like to think about what that means for getting politicians to listen to your views.
"What form? I've never filled in any form giving politicians, local or otherwise my email address nor would I."
Then you won't be getting any e-mails. Also, the local political parties will know nothing of your views.
"And there's only one way in which spamming would improve the democratic process - it would tell voters which parties to avoid."
Well, if you're so freaked out by the thought of having to spend a couple of seconds clicking an unsubscribe link so they never e-mail you again that you'd silence important democratic communication then you've no-one to blame but yourself when the politicians ignore your views.
"If a candidate wants to communicate with the public they can get out there and talk face-to-face so they can have their fallacies explained to them"
Even a council ward has around 10,000 residents; a constituency has around 200,000. Think about it.
"What form? I've never filled in any form giving politicians, local or otherwise my email address nor would I."
Then you won't be getting any e-mails. Also, the local political parties will know nothing of your views.
You haven't answered the question. What form? Let me rephrase my explanatory sentence: "I've never seen any form etc"
Where would these forms be?
clicking an unsubscribe link so they never e-mail you again that you'd silence important democratic communication then you've no-one to blame but yourself when the politicians ignore your views.
You clearly haven't grasped the difference between specific emails and spam. I have, on several occasions, had email conversations with my MP of the day - inevitably with no useful outcome - but neither of them has used that opportunity to spam which was sensible of them. But at least they had my views to ignore. Spam, on the other hand does not provide them with my views to ignore, it simply clutters up my in-box with theirs.
Ask yourself this: if you can tell a man by the company he keeps what does it tell you about a man who keeps company with Nigerian princes, Viagra merchants, phishers and all the other slime at the bottom of the internet?
"Where would these forms be?"
If you've given your e-mail address on a petition or a neighbourhood survey normally.
"You clearly haven't grasped the difference between specific emails and spam"
And if you haven't given your e-mail address, or have but subsequently unsubscribed you won't get anything. My last mailing to over 500 people in my ward got a 43% open rate and not a single unsubscribe request. Clearly it's going to people happy to receive it.
After GDPR it's unlikely I'll be able to use those e-mail addresses any more because I don't have the specific permission to use them for mailings about local issues. How is that a good thing?
I asked why I was still getting mail from political parties after they introduced the opt-out from the electoral register. The nice people at the council told me that Political Candidates, the police/security services and credit reference agencies are the only people who can see it. I was deeply unhappy about the first category being able to see my details - why should they? I wasn't all that happy about the last category either but it's unavoidable. So I sent each communique back to the respective party with the annotation "Addressee Unknown - Please Return to Sender" . This didn't deter them so I wrote on the envelopes before they went back in the post that I wouldn't vote for any party that continued to send me mail. That did have an impact.
"This didn't deter them so I wrote on the envelopes before they went back in the post that I wouldn't vote for any party that continued to send me mail. That did have an impact."
A good lesson in doing it the right way. How are the parties supposed to know that a "return to sender" is a request to stop sending mail?
Always a shame when people have so little interest in their area that they won't spend a few minutes reading about what the local parties are doing, but your choice I guess.
And, one of the reasons we have access to the register is as a safeguard against electoral fraud.
I'm quite happy to hear from my local politicians and no problems with that. One of them is a very good local councilor who I've voted for based on his actions in the local community. I just don't want to receive unsolicited post from them if it's all the same. I can look up on-line who I can vote for and what their policies are etc. I don't need to have it rammed through my letterbox in letters addressed to me, along with leaflets that are unaddressed.
A problem for email list hoarders you mean?
Me emailing a person within a company does not constituent my wish to sign up to their marketing email list. So many companies auto add any and all email addresses that they encounter to their lists that it is beyond absurd how many emails I get at certain times of the year (trade shows and traditional product release dates).
And there is no small print for me to read and accept before sending an email to a person either.
It is about time that those bastards were held to account.
Confusing and badly draughty I have little doubt but
The result is a complex, often confusing, piece of legislation that Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho described as being "incredibly hard to read and even harder to understand".
is hardly the best person to comment on things that are difficult to understand.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
