Nadine Dorries promotes 'Brexit rewards' of proposed UK data protection law On the day the UK is set to appoint its new prime minister, digital and culture secretary Nadine Dorries is introducing legislation in Parliament she promises will “drop unnecessary box-ticking and measures stifling British businesses.” Getting its second reading in the House of Commons, the Data Protection and Digital …
She may have got one thing right:
This data Bill is one of Brexit’s biggest rewards.
I expect nothing good from this data Bill and even less from anything else Brexit related. On the other hand, perhaps there are big rewards ... for her, her colleagues and certain multinational companies.
"... I hope there will be a detailed and objective analysis undertaken to assess whether the benefits from UK's data reform outweigh the risks"
Don't be silly. We have taken back control and now we can do anything we like.
It may not be in the best interest of the country, it may diminish what standing we have left with the wider world but it will be promoted as one of the benefits of Brexit.
Lets hope that now Truss is in charge people like Dorries are shown the door but looking at the "talent" available in the Tory ranks any replacement may well not be much of an improvement.
I’d hardly call Liz Truss talent.
Talent is a word that has little meaning on its own. [Quality is another of those words BTW.] Dizzy Lizzy has talent. What kind of talent is left as an exercise for the reader.
My money's on her talent for making BoJo's clown parade of z-list numpties look like a paragon of truth, integrity, competence and sound public finances.
The good news coming out of the change of PM is that Dorries has quit government. She apparently wants to go back to writing rubbish books, no doubt because no-one challenges her there...
But yeah, sadly she was apparently offered a job, but she's turned it down and said literally that she wanted to return to being an author.
Good riddance, I say.
It’s astonishing isn’t it (except not at all astonishing to anyone with half a brain). But all the Tory attempts at reducing red tape through half baked schemes like Brexit have left us awash with the stuff. There’s more paperwork and box ticking than ever.
And all their promises to make us richer have made them richer and the rest of us poorer. They’re an absolute shower, the lot of them, and they’re driving this country into the crapper.
Not so much the party of fiscal probity as the party of anal probity - so bend over because here it comes again.
Nothing good will come of this, and the sooner we can have a government that cares about this country and it’s people the better.
Two downvotes? They're surely the ones still fucking the flagpole and mumbling incoherently about getting Brexit done.
Dorries thinks this will save a billion over the next ten years. How much is being lost *every* *single* *year* because of the mountains of red tape and paperwork due to walking away from the customs union? Plus, I think you'll find a depressing number of businesses worry about if they'll be around in ten weeks, never mind ten years.
Downvotes are to be expected. There are an astonishingly large number of gullible people in the world, whether swallowing the fascist claptrap of the MAGA republicans or greedily swallowing the lies of Farage, Mogg, Johnson and the right wing press (largely but not exclusively controlled by Murdoch) or (and because I’m a woolly centrist) the far left policies of Momentum (who seem to be equally at home to weird conspiracy theories, and are so hell bent on their idea of perfection that they’d rather have a Conservative government in power than work with more moderate parties to oust them)
https://fullfact.org/europe/online-cost-brexit-net-contributions/ has the numbers up to 2020 - £200bn worse off since Brexit vs. £216bn contributions. I can't see how extrapolating the numbers up to 2022 can do anything but put it over the £216bn mark. I mean, you can pretend that because we don't know the exact number, it might not be true, but the evidence pretty much confirms it.
In EU weekly spend according to HMG = £350m (really a bit less than that)
Out of EU the UK weekly spend for the same things that were shared across the EU = £800m
OK that may drop a bit once systems are in place but we will never be better off.
The problem is not that Brexit was stupid but the complete incompetence of the UK negotiations, it might have been possible to salvage something from the train wreck but this shower didn't even try.
This is to provide a haven in UK for FB when IRL is finally forced to apply GDPR.
Then there will be 10 years in the courts with FB & UK arguing that the new UK data laws offer adequacy with GDPR when the whole point of the new UK data laws is to allow the likes of FB to pillage data just like in the US.
In the meantime, for the rest of us, the UK will be judged, quite correctly, to have inadequate and non-equivalent data protection by the EU and we'll yet more hurdles to trade. However the move to be like the US where the consumer or employee doesn't matter and all that matters is the mighty dollar, sorry plumetting pound.
Whilst most will agree that we are saddled with mountains of red tape and it has got far worse after Brexit. A change of Government is not going to magically fix anything.
Most of the problems we are landed with no are a direct result of inept and incompetent politicians. The trouble is that whatever political party is in power, it will change the shape of mess but not really improve it.
The arguments for "just rejoining" the EU are difficult as the UK will not exactly be welcomed and certainly not with the same terms that we left.
In the short to medium term what is needed is a pragmatic compromise so that we become part of the Customs Union/Single Market again.
Yes it is not ideal but it is far more likely and certainly far quicker than trying to reverse the total pigs-ear started by Cameron with the ill-fated 2016 referendum that Johnson spectacularly oversold with his "Get Brexit Done" BS.
I disagree. Whilst rejoining the EU has to be an objective, we will all benefit from electing a government which has the best interests of the country and its people at heart rather than the government we have now which is only interested in the financial well-being of its donors.
True, the Tories have made such an unholy pigs ear of the country that any new government will need decades to fix the mess - but that doesn’t mean we should give up. It just means that we should resolve to do all we can to ensure that these idiots never get elected again - at least until they abandon absolute greed and their far right ideology.
Err, I did not say that we should not re-join, I said the a pragmatic compromise is needed for the short term and that the Customs Union/Single Market was the solution to most of the current problems.
Re-joining, if it happens will take decades. We need something to happen far sooner than that.
Probably. And we’ll have no veto. And we’ll have have lost all that influence and trust within Europe.
Yet, despite all that, we’ll be better of as a minor nation within Europe than a failing state outside of it.
I don’t blame the people who were fooled into voting for Brexit. I blame the perpetrators of this crime, and I pity the people who still haven’t come to their senses - or are unable to see the truth.
Truly Brexit was an act of treason on an almost unprecedented scale.
For whatever the various haters go on about things, when we were in the EU we had a very potent veto. Which we almost never used. We also had the potential to have negotiators to put forward the UK's case and requirements, which unfortunately we often squandered by sending abject rejects like Farage and "friends" to the EU parliament.
Damm right.
Only 3 groups of people voted for Brexit.
The delusional, the greedy and the gullible.
I'd put most of the (remaining) 15 million left who voted Leave (after about the 2 million dead of old age) to be gullible.
Sooner or later the young will realize how much their elders (because it was quite well split by age, as well as wheather you were a numerate graduate) have f**ked them.
And they might take quite stronlgy against quite a lot of the codergly class.
You're right and wrong.
We will be required to join the Euro.
And that won't matter.
Because Sweden has been required to join the Euro since 1995, and has done bugger all about it. We'll just do exactly the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro#:~:text=Sweden%20does%20not%20currently%20use,they%20meet%20the%20necessary%20conditions.
Initially we'll just claim we don't meet the conditions (which is likely anyway), then we'll just drag our feet.
And the rest of Europe won't expect us to join, so they won't care. We'll all just get on with things that are more important.
Honestly, this "We can't rejoin we'll have to join the Euro" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish.
@Philip Storry
There is of course also Denmark who decided to keep the Danish crown.
But I still would not claim it's "rubbish" as there is really no way to know how different countries would react.
But if there is today a rule that demands a "new" member to join the euro zone that rule can be changed if the member states agree.
And after all, there are hardly any rules specifically for rejoining the EU.
I don't think the pound would be the biggest question at all.
I think one of the bigger questions would be about howto prevent Britain from becoming a "hand grenade", never knowing if it is coming or going before every election.
My first "demand" would be that you get rid of the fptp, not that I know if stuff like that ever enter any such discussions
But what I find so very English is the deeply inbuilt assumption that joining the euro would be a bad thing.
Seriously, what is that based on.
Both in Sweden and Denmark business would have preferred the euro because they can count, and even if they knew they would lose the ability to devaluate the currency.
One SEK is worth 0.080 pound and the DKK is 0.115 pound today.
Both in Sweden and Denmark business would have preferred the euro because they can count, and even if they knew they would lose the ability to devaluate the currency.
Same experience here. Working with a group of about 10 companies scattered over Scandinavia, and none use their local currency in discussions and decisions. We all think, write, decide, and pay in euros. And yes, we are a bit bigger can that manufacturer of macrame wind lights....
@Lars
"But what I find so very English is the deeply inbuilt assumption that joining the euro would be a bad thing.
Seriously, what is that based on."
Reality. Seeing it in action. Recent history and the current situation. Economics and an entire history of learning economics the hard way and watching as the Eurozone seems to aim for harm.
@Philip Storry
"Because Sweden has been required to join the Euro since 1995, and has done bugger all about it. We'll just do exactly the same."..."Honestly, this "We can't rejoin we'll have to join the Euro" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish."
The EU project is so amazing and glorious that we should join but then refuse to meet the conditions or outright lie so as not to join the EU proper. Remember the referendum where remain was imperative because we had so many opt outs to avoid being really in the project that we could never get back.
If we voted leave even when we had out exceptions and opt outs why would we want to join fully?
@Snapper
"Voting usually means you can change your mind about what's important later."
Of course. And so it would take a huge change of mind to get the majority (leave) and the remain voters who would only stay with the opt outs to vote to rejoin. Not likely I expect
You're either purposefully twisting my words or you're misunderstanding them.
"The EU project is so amazing and glorious that we should join but then refuse to meet the conditions or outright lie so as not to join the EU proper."
Nobody said refuse. There are already conditions for joining the Euro, we likely won't meet them.
The simple fact is that whilst our economy benefited from being in the Single Market, it's dissimilar enough that we may not benefit from the Euro. The last thing that anyone in the EU wants is a repeat of Greece, where a country lied to get into the Euro club. The mere mention of that will have everyone happily accepting a more cautious approach.
So we don't need to refuse or outright lie as you state. We can be reasonable partners who understand each other's positions and agree on a pragmatic compromise.
"If we voted leave even when we had out exceptions and opt outs why would we want to join fully?"
Because the people who told us it would be great to leave were either liars or incompetent.
Go speak to fisheries and farmers about their happy fish and sunlit uplands. Go speak to small and medium businesses about how we have all of the benefits of membership, but none of the drawbacks. Go speak to hospitality and entertainment about red tape.
Boris Johnson led one of the campaigns, and he's a liar. Not even an accidental liar, but a man who lies as easily as he breathes. His name is attached to the Brexit project. Farage is the other campaign leader, and he's not exactly a shining beacon of honesty and truth.
I remember the Iraq war. Before we actually went to war the public was roughly 50/50, and on any given day you could have had a vote go either way. That was because nobody knew who they could trust. Which side was right - the USA/UK governments, or the wider international community?
Once people saw how badly wrong the planning and intelligence had been, support simply fell away. Sound familiar? Seeing anything like that happen recently? The people are fickle, and I'd bet money that when the histories are written Brexit will be seen as a doomed failure sold by liars and incompetents.
Either Brexit's supporters start delivering all those promises, or Brexit will continue to be a failure.
What quitlings fail to understand is that it won't just be a campaign to rejoin, it will be a campaign to regain what we lost. What they gave away. And that is far more quantifiable than "sovereignty" and "control" ever will be - as this article so amply demonstrates.
@Philip Storry
"You're either purposefully twisting my words or you're misunderstanding them."
Slight extradition of your words as I dont think anyone is dumb enough to think its "amazing and glorious".
"Nobody said refuse. There are already conditions for joining the Euro, we likely won't meet them."
Erm... in the comment I wrote that you are replying to I quoted you directly- "Honestly, this "We can't rejoin we'll have to join the Euro" rubbish is exactly that - rubbish.". You even used Sweden as an example and literally said we should "just drag our feet.". That sounds like refusing to join the Euro.
"The simple fact is that whilst our economy benefited from being in the Single Market, it's dissimilar enough that we may not benefit from the Euro."
I would put it another way that while there may be some benefits to a single market the Euro is a bloody mess.
"The last thing that anyone in the EU wants is a repeat of Greece, where a country lied to get into the Euro club."
Who had private debts to various rich member countries banks which ended up with the banks in the rich member countries being paid and the debt made public debt used to beat the Greeks into submission.
"So we don't need to refuse or outright lie as you state. We can be reasonable partners who understand each other's positions and agree on a pragmatic compromise."
Saying we will join the Euro then intentionally dragging our feet sounds like refusing. And since when has this been a reasonable partnership of understanding and pragmatism? Think the covid crisis if not the brexit negotiations. NI is going well with the pragmatic and understanding balls up on the continent.
"Because the people who told us it would be great to leave were either liars or incompetent."
Why? Seems to be going pretty well for the short time we have been out. Alternatively the fire and brimstone FUD we were told would happen if we left didnt. It was an amusing damp squib to watch as remainers cling to the next hope and prayer of damage they can try to claim on brexit. Its so desperate that any issue is jumped on as a brexit problem only to be pointed out the problem is in various countries in or out.
"Go speak to hospitality and entertainment about red tape."
I think that was more of a covid lockdown failure that hit those.
"Boris Johnson led one of the campaigns, and he's a liar. Not even an accidental liar, but a man who lies as easily as he breathes. His name is attached to the Brexit project."
Yes. And remain had Blair, Mandelson, Cameron, etc. I accept the official leave campaign was a bunch of liars. I have often said I at first thought the official leave campaign group was chosen as a trojan horse. Then I saw remain and realised they were both incompetent liars.
"The people are fickle, and I'd bet money that when the histories are written Brexit will be seen as a doomed failure sold by liars and incompetents."
I see people clinging to this desperate hope. Assuming the EU is still around by then.
"Either Brexit's supporters start delivering all those promises, or Brexit will continue to be a failure."
First of all I agree there was plenty bull being spouted (both sides). But delivery was not an instant result since the UK market was vastly distorted by membership. The good news is covid demonstrated solid instantaneous benefits people could see right away and affected their lives. They could see how badly the EU acted and how incompetent they were. The petty failure of leadership which didnt harm just a country but countries! It got so bad even the fanatical EU nutters from within were turning on the commission publicly and despair at how the UK was doing better.
"What quitlings fail to understand is that it won't just be a campaign to rejoin, it will be a campaign to regain what we lost. What they gave away. And that is far more quantifiable than "sovereignty" and "control" ever will be - as this article so amply demonstrates."
Eh what bull? Regain what? The argument was that there is no going back, it would be a rejoin without the opt outs (that wernt good enough to secure remain) nor keeping our own currency (the Euro being poison we rejected). As for what we gave away being more quantifiable than the very benefits demonstrated immediately from brexit is just insane.
"EU will insist on UK adopting the Euro as a condition of re-entry".
This is both technically true and utter bollocks.
Wannabe EU members have to agree to adopt the Euro as a condition of membership. But there is no legal way to mandate that. New EU members can only join the Eurozone after they have been in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and complied with its policies on national debt and deficits for 3? 5? years. That effectively locks its currency's exchange rate to the Euro. Entering the ERM is voluntary and aspiring/existing EU members can't be forced to do that. Besides, after the meltdown in Greece, the ECB is not going to welcome another economic basket case in the Eurozone or ERM.
So if/when what's left of the UK comes to its senses and applies for EU membership, it will be able to kick the Euro can down the road for as long as it likes.
However it's unlikely the EU will grant a returning UK all the opt-outs, budget rebates and derogations it had negotiated during its earlier membership. These may well matter more to Little Englanders than the somewhat hypothetical adoption of the Euro.
I should hope so.
Especially since the UK is whining about things it itself had approved and voted for before it left.
The EU is not perfect, but everything it has encated has been approved by all its members - including the UK.
So deal with it.
Yes and no.
This article shows that it was seriously considered, but the housing market and some other differences kept us from joining:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_economic_tests
It's an interesting read.
It's probably also worth pointing out that all of that research is well over a decade old - once joining the Euro was ruled out by Blair, I suspect everyone stopped bothering to research it. You certainly shouldn't quote that as though it applies to our current economic clusterf... er, situation.
(Phew! Close call at the end there!)
There will be a few others, also good ideas but anathema to UKIP xenophobes .
Freedom of movement - preferably Schengen
dodgy financial stuff prevention
regarding all areas as worthy of financial aid (Truro is as deserving as London and Kirkwall)
protect the environment (no more sh1t in the sea)
"But all the Tory attempts at reducing red tape through half baked schemes like Brexit have left us awash with the stuff. There’s more paperwork and box ticking than ever."
That's because they only have the power to reduce ('self regulation'!) the red tape on UK regulations... once you want to export goods next door you also need to conform to standard EU regs plus the extra red tape because we are no longer a member country
No need for French farmers to set fire to lorry loads of British lamb... it's just going to rot at customs because the necessary stamp on page 67 of the documentation is upside-down
We have a whole government of Baldrick level thinkers.
"I have a cunning plan - we'll make our own data protection laws, that'll save us pennies and show those EU who's boss!"
"yes, except if we do that, we won't be able to trade with them, which will cost pounds. Go away Baldine"
This is really just about keeping a seat at the table/trough. The UK is facing some incredibly difficult economic and political challenges and won't really have time for anything else. But, until then it's all about soundbites to keep the members happy.
Winter is coming.
>If the government's legislation ends up too different from the EU's GDPR, it could threaten the "adequacy" ruling which currently allows data sharing between the UK and Europe's trading bloc.
This is, of course, the real issue at the core - if it is deemed no longer adequate, then what will all affected businesses do?
The Gov though, as typical, has provided zero information on that.
Outrage and working up your fans first,
Actually thinking it through and coming up with a strategy left to an afterthought. After all, they'll be gone by then and can blame it on the next person.
It's still beyond me why anyone would want to defend GDPR, apart from the many legal consultants who've made out like bandits whilst pushing corporations and unfortunate SMEs through box ticking exercises.
The case for privacy is clear, but to suggest that GDPR is the pinnacle of privacy regulation is ridiculous. And given that any company operating beyond the shores of the UK already has to comply with a range of payment, taxation, data location and tracking requirements, the idea that dropping some regulations for local operators imposes a huge burden is nonsense.
I've no faith in the current government making great strides here, but it's depressing that 'representative voices' are so keen to denounce any attempt at improving a poor set of regulations with a raft of unintended consequences and costs.
And yet, we're not all using XML... we could have evolved it...
If something is clunky, expensive to implement, inflexible and poor at representing some classes of problems, it turns out that evolution doesn't serve us very well. And let's remember these things are meant to serve us, not the other way around, and certainly not solely to provide jobs for the boys.
GDPR is far from perfect, but given that it arose in response to the corporate mindset of "fuck privacy", I think we need to cling on to it until something better comes along. And if it is tedious and expensive for a company to implement, well, what does that say about that company's regard for personal data?
(here's a hint - it cost the company I work for very little as they were already aware that certain types of information should be treated as confidential, and this was already a part of one of their ISO something-or-other audits)
Hmm... some revisionist history I think - GDPR was as much an attempt by Europe to stop the Americans dominating online services as it was a serious attempt to "provide privacy". Much of the legislation is about control rather than protection, and much of the protection broken by a complete failure to anticipate how companies would handle consent.
Again, in one breath people say "until something better comes along", before in the very next breath decrying any attempt to try a different path.
It's also somewhat amusing to hear people also claim "this regulation is the only game in town", before stating that much of it was already in ISO standards.
Far too much of this debate is dominated by political motivations rather than any technical analysis.
No, it was not.
The aim of the GDPR was the protect individuals from corporate data predation, to give individuals control of their own data and to give them legal rights to challenge companies that abuse trust and personal data.
It had a tough time trying to balance fair use, appropriate use and necessary use of data alongside individual privacy and in general it did a pretty good job considering.
Companies that struggled with it were the type of companies that just collected data regardless, used data without reasonable expectation that they would and so on. GDPR was, and is, easy. However one of your other comments about the snake oil consultants running amok to fleece cash from others was too spot on... some of these consultants really didn't like to be called out on their idiotic interpretation of GDPR, particularly with a copy of the GDRP in hand in front of me, and went back to wanting to fleece others for more money while they could.
Has the ICO been rather toothless at times? Yep. Have some companies just ignored the GDPR and continued doing whatever they felt like anyway and gotten away with it as a result? Yes. However this is often because the ICO, and their international equivalents, were toothless, gutless, or often just staffed by lobbyists from data stealing firms.
I might have agreed with you (but probably not) if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the population a) don't understand it and b) don't give a rats ass.
One thing it has achieved is give companies/organisations another excuse to be unhelpful HASAWA, DPA, GDPR. Anyone else had the conversation "I'm phoning to tell you my mother has died and I need....; "sorry I can't give you that information I need to speak to her"?
Yeah, I've taken flak on here for admitting I voted to leave the EU, and the UK making its own laws was part of that.
GDPR has a lot of good things in it, and a few elements that just aren't great. I'd be happy with the UK improving on it, and making data protection laws suit UK needs.
I am however with the majority here. Dorries and her advisers do not appear to understand UK needs, and particularly the needs of the people of the UK. Still, in two years time her party can be voted out of Government and a new Government established that will put proper privacy protections in place, and won't try and control the internet for their own political purposes.
It's democracy, and we still haven't found anything better.
I was with you all the way until you said...
" a new Government established that will put proper privacy protections in place"
at which point I emptied my mouth of coffee and now need a new keyboard.
No matter who you vote for the government always get in! In this case, expecting any government to care about proper privacy protections - especially for individuals - is just a child-like belief in the good of man.
If it helps I was being sardonic. There just aren't the people to vote for (and enough people that would vote for them) that would do these things properly.
At least they can't shift the blame now though. And I am looking forward to getting every single politician banned from every single social media platform by merely reporting what they say on a daily basis, due to the horrific 'safety' bill.
I didn't even get that far... "in two years time her party can be voted out of Government" was enough
If only the Monster Raving Looney Party could get their act together. They had some good ideas that were stolen by the Big 2
https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717
No one is claiming that GDPR is the pinnacle of privacy regulation. But it is the first serious attempt at new privacy regulation in the modern age of big business harvesting our data for financial gain. And the fact that GDPR had to be so big and a cross-EU endeavour is a sad indictment of the power that big business has and the lengths it will go to, to make money from our private data.
As Triggerfish said, GDPR backed by the big EU has a chance against the likes of Google and FB. The UK on its own, less so.
Exactly the point I'm making. GDPR has had zero effect on Google and FB (who were the primary targets of GDPR, let's not forget), whilst adding costs and complexity to many European small businesses.
Europe continues to look at America, scratch it's head and wonder how the Yanks manage to completely dominate this field - then goes on to introduce more regulation in the hope that increasing bureaucracy will cause spontaneous innovation.
As a veteran data protection consultant who followed the development of the GDPR from its first moments, I can safely assert that 'targeting' Gooooooogle & FB was not the primary driver of the legislation's development. It was fundamentally conceived to correct the massive variability (and in some cases - notably the UK's DPA 1998 - downright deficiencies) in the national implementations of the Directive.
Although it's not perfect, its main problem is not the law itself but the fact that in many places it isn't enforced adequately (i.e. in some cases, hardly at all). The regulators are underfunded and understaffed, and they tend to concentrate their efforts on the "big players" that are good PR but can weather any penalties that can be thrown at them, while the huge groundswell of abuse by smaller organisations turns out to be just too expensive to take action against. Consequently (rather like speeding on the roads) pretty much everyone gets away with ignoring the law, and as the current plan is to make compliance largely a matter of personal opinion by allowing the potential abusers to decide whether they're complying, this could become an accepted norm. Given the absence of active policing , they'll mostly get away with it too, as they currently do. It'll just become much harder to challenge them.
It didn't need to be implemented widely.
You register your Eu office in the country with the lowest tax for US corporations and in return they ensure that all GDPR complaints are investigated fully - by the part-time assistant that comes in on the 3rd thursday of every month (unless her cat is sick).
The quote in the linked article is a thing of beauty:
“It was not that they went online and looked for the means to do so, but because algorithms took them in that direction, whether it was to pro-anorexia sites, suicide chatrooms or self-harm sites,” she told MPs in November. --Nadine Dorries, 2021
On a positive note, at least it's not videogames anymore (this time). Bets are open for what will take the flak when algorithms fall out of favour.
Hmmm.... what's next after algorithms to blame for a government's own actions/inactions/beligerance...
I suspect I've missed a few.
British business would do well to keep EU GDPR version if they want to do business with the rest of the EU let alone the rest of the world. So far all I have read is vague arguments of protecting the internet public from predator business. I assume what will happen that trading information on individual persons data and this will happen openly to boot. The EU has done well despite GDPR so whats wrong with Britain or more to the point why does the Tory Party grow a back bone and admit it screwed up.
For the time being.
I'm reminded of an incident in "Yes Prime Minister" with Hacker in one of his usual jams and asking what to do next. It was suggested he invite the Leader of the Opposition's wife to visit No 10. "Why?" "To measure up for curtains." I suppose the difference these days is that measuring up for curtains is something that's going to be avoided for a long time.
I am willing to give her a chance and see what she does. But she is following a bunch of red tories or progressive conservatives. Does she have the spine and will to deal with the current issues or will it be a continuation?
As an ex Lib Dem Liz Truss is arguably more of the same.
What? The series of disasters she's managed thus far haven't managed to convince you? You're a hard one to please!
This leadership election, similar to that of IDS (remember him?), was all about who didn't want to win. She's going to need to pull a string of massive rabbits out of the hat not to lose the next election ignominously before passing into obscurity.
Thatcher had a brain. Truss is Boris, minus his single brain cell, in a Thatcher tribute act. A terrifyingly moronic human to be leading the country. And it says a lot about party members that her only policies were tax cuts and don't help the poor, and that got her elected by them. Oh and not being black, but I'm sure that had no impact.
giving organizations the flexibility to protect personal data in more proportionate ways rather than forcing them to all follow the same processes regardless of their size.
is the bit that most worries me. How can protection of personal data be proportional based on the size of the company? Forget about the overall GDPR implications and data transfer to the EU (bad enough as that is). Is it a case of:
a) Company has 1,000 customers - security is putting that list you printed on the drawer and locking it
b) Company has 10,000 customers - the drawer must be replaced by a safe and the servers have to be unplugged every night and locked away
c) Company has 100,000 customers - the company has to have an anti-virus package installed
d) company has 1,000,000 customers - have every request coming into the company network scrutinised to make sure it is both safe and legitimate. Have security bots on standby to race back down the network and blow up the computer of anyone who tries to access with nefarious intentions, notify the police who will have a special team on standby just to respond to imminent threats of this nature before they cause any harm. Oh, and send a drone to the source location to blow up the source if the police are already busy. Best make the explosive a nuke to make sure they get the miscreants and don't worry about collateral damage. It can't be helped if it keeps the country safe.
If you are a customer that falls into option a or b, don't worry I'm sure the lock will be super duper strong. You're data will still be safe, honest. What do you take me for?
(Can you spot the sarcasm?)
> the new rules would remove the prescriptive requirements of data laws inherited from the EU, giving organizations the flexibility to protect personal data in more proportionate ways rather than forcing them to all follow the same processes regardless of their size
"Flexibility" being the giveaway weasel word here.
Want to bet that in practice that means it'll be used as an excuse to reduce sorely-needed regulation, allow companies to make up their own, inadequate data "protection" schemes to suit themselves rather than those they're "protecting" then get a slap on the wrist when it all blows up and everything leaks?
Almost as if that was the intention all along from those who wanted Brexit so they'd be free to pursue their anti-regulation, laissez-faire, race-to-the-bottom agenda.
Ironically, those who bleat loudest about "red tape" are usually the types who'll be first to exploit its absence- in other words, those who made such red tape necessary to protect us in the first place.
Believing that data can be protected in flexible ways is like believing that you can be half-pregnant. Never mind that introducing new procedures is going to cost companies a fortune, at a time when fortunes to spend on this kind of disruption are in short supply, especially for smaller businesses. Performative change just for the sake of it isn't going to make any ordinary business richer, it's just a green light for the big data slurpers to come in and sell our privacy for bigger profits, dressing up awful schemes as Brexit Benefits.
However, this is probably one of the more minor worries about what we're about to experience. Limits on working time and right to paid holidays are also for the chop if the weekend's newspapers are correct. And food safety standards. That's how the real money is intended to be made. Welcome to your new Sunny British Libertarian Dystopia, none of which anyone but a few tory members will have voted for.
> Welcome to your new Sunny British Libertarian Dystopia, none of which anyone but a few tory members will have voted for.
On the contrary, it was clear to anyone paying attention at the time that this was what Brexiteers wanted and the direction they'd use Brexit to drag the UK in. Mainly because they were very open about it.
So, this is *exactly* what 51.9% of those who bothered to turn out in 2016 actually voted for, regardless of whether they were too busy guzzling up the Kool-Aid, calling anyone who pointed out the obvious lies "Remoaners" and being generally Useful Idiots to have noticed.
I have to say that confirms my impression that not many people were paying attention, especially how the Leave claims changed as the older ones were challenged.
I'm near retirement, and my kids are just starting their careers with a mountain of student debt. Very depressing that we've managed to get ourselves into this unholy mess with little being offered by politicians of every stipe to seriously deal with the situation.
@Snapper
"I have to say that confirms my impression that not many people were paying attention, especially how the Leave claims changed as the older ones were challenged."
You should have tried challenging remainers. Either the goalposts ran away or the responses stopped as they had no answer. Even just pointing out basic contradictions in remain or their viewpoints would bring about amazing mental gymnastics or silence as they had an aneurysm.
"I'm near retirement, and my kids are just starting their careers with a mountain of student debt."
How is the student debt related if it is (no worries if not, just checking I aint missing some connection)? But then who took out the loans and did they have intention of paying them back for a service (education) that they felt was worth it?
The brewery flagged as a "Brexit export champion" has had its exports to the EU fall from £600k to £2, a mere 99.997% reduction.
"This data Bill is one of Brexit’s biggest rewards"
Really? One of Brexits biggest rewards? Is she serious? If a government minister is claiming this is viewed as a big win from Brexit then it just shows the country has been shafted by the politicians and industry owners who campaigned for it.
>Really? One of Brexits biggest rewards? Is she serious? If a government minister is claiming this is viewed as a big win from Brexit then it just shows the country has been shafted by the politicians and industry owners who campaigned for it.
TBF Wurzel from Spoons was whinging yesterday about Brexit affecting his business. So some of them have shafted themselves...
And if anyone wants help with their heating bills, Spoons offer unlimited coffee/tea so you can stay warm on their dime - but you might be better not actually drinking said hot drinks.
Once the rules have quashed adequacy with GDPR, and the EU have ruled that this is the case, we'll have a huddle of politicians crawling atop on another to squawk that:
"This ruling clearly shows that the EU continue to act in bad faith when dealing with the UK. Our data protection measures are harsh, fair, and sufficient to protect the privacy of all citizens. The EU continue to show it's true colours".
Not any mention of the whole point of GDPR - privacy. As in, the data belongs to us in the first place. Watering down the rules necessitates a loss of privacy.
This entire thing is aimed at moving closer to the USA. A country that has consistently told the UK it isn't interested in us since Brexit...
She's delusional. The direct consequence with her proposal will be data exchanged between the EU and UK to be stopped.
UK companies won't be able to do business with European citizens if they don't comply to GDPR. GDPR apply to any company doing business in the EU, whatever its location.
Expect also UK citizens' privacy to be sold, for a little bit more than thirty denarii.
I pity people on the other side of La Manche, your masters decided your private life is just a good they can sell.
giving organizations the flexibility to protect personal data in more proportionate ways rather than forcing them to all follow the same processes regardless of their size.
so if a big company wants to use personal data as it wants, it will create a small company as proxy and voila! All the restrictions are gone.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
so if a big company wants to use personal data as it wants, it will create a small company as proxy and voila! All the restrictions are gone.Which is something that the GDPR explicitly tackled... now explicitly being put back in as a loop hole exploitable by Tory party backers. The UK's Data Protection will be deemed as non-equivalent as soon as this hits.
Like The Old Dairy Brewery held up as a shining Brexit success:
uk.gov Twitter crowing from last year
Post Brexit their annual exports to the EU have now dropped for £600,000 to £2000
Fuck ...really this is the best that they can come up with.... if as i suspect this is just an attempt to sell UK data to the highest bidders... how does the mad cow think she can explain "privacey" when the advocates explain we now have less privacy, hows that going to get spun ... 2nd unelected pm from a ever dwindeling cabal of incompotents
The Ghost of Brexit past, present and future launches brand of gin...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/05/nigel-farage-gin-sparks-cornish-controversy
Guaranteed to give a lingering severe headache and bitter after taste
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
