UK's proposed alt.GDPR will turn Britain into a 'test lab' for data harvesting

The UK is expected to adopt a new data protection bill this Autumn. If that happens, more than two dozen civil society groups and privacy experts want the European Commission to cancel its 2021 data sharing agreement with the UK. The Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) Bill, proposed last year then amended and re- …

[Doctor Syntax]

Brexit was always obviously a matter of removing citizens' rights wrapped up in jingoism and the deliberately misleading* slogan of taking back control. There's not the least surprise in all this going on. It may benefit a few big businesses in the short to medium term. In the long term it will be more and more difficult for them to squeeze profits from the UK.

* In case you still believed that was to benefit you, take a moment to think who it was who was going to get - and has now got - control and what that control achieved. It wasn't and isn't you and it was to provide protection for the individual.

[codejunky]

@Doctor Syntax

"Brexit was always obviously a matter of removing citizens' rights"

Participation in the EU was obviously a matter of removing citizens' rights. Same applies for pretty much the rest of the comment. Guess its a matter of perspective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Brexit has failed."

As described by [Checks Notes] a Mr Nigel Farage.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Brexit has failed? So has his bank account... according to him, anyway.

(I notice how Lawrence Fox wanted to close his accounts with Barclays because of that, even though Farage's account wasn't with Barclays. GB News... they wouldn't be the sharpest things in the drawer even if they were the only knife in a collection of spoons).

[Arthur the cat]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

they wouldn't be the sharpest things in the drawer even if they were the only knife in a collection of spoons

I am so stealing that for future use.

[Red Or Zed]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Participation in the EU was obviously a matter of removing citizens' rights."

What rights were removed? Which ones? What can EU citizens not do that suddenly "free" UK ones can?

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Red Or Zed

"What rights were removed? Which ones? What can EU citizens not do that suddenly "free" UK ones can?"

Vote for the people running the country. Trade outside of the EU 'accepted'.

[heyrick]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Trade outside of the EU 'accepted'."

Oh FFS.

The place where I work, we're working our arses off, having picked up some good new contracts in Asia and Latin America.

I'm in France, in the EU. And yet, mystifyingly, we seem completely about to enter into trade arrangements all around the planet. Funny, that.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@heyrick

"Oh FFS."

Pretty much what I thought after reading your comment. What does it have to do with the price of fish?

And back to all the claims that food would be more expensive after leaving with a huge bloody asterisk *from the EU. Because without the asterisk it was bull, entirely down to the trade rules we were limited by.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Pretty much what I thought after reading your comment. What does it have to do with the price of fish?"

You're brave: mentioning fish after the collapse of the British fishing industry post brexit? Yet another Brexit FAILURE.

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

I am old enough to remember that the collapse of the British Fishing industry took place in the decade or so after we joined the EEC - what we had left to lose after Brexit was a pathetic and almost insignificant shadow of what had been a huge fishing fleet in the 1960s.

Brexit didn't cause the collapse of the UK fishing industry, because we barely had a fishing industry left to lose - please examine and try to understand the history of the UK Fishing Industry more carefully before you post such nonsense!

[Rich 11]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

The collapse of the British fishing industry was primarily caused by losing the Cod Wars, which was nothing to do with the EEC. It was NATO which oversaw the negotiations between the UK and Iceland that finally settled fishing rights in 1976, and the UN which recognised the 200nm zone standard that the UK subsequently proposed. The later EU fishing quotas imposed across the community were essential for fisheries management, Atlantic cod et al having been reduced to an unsustainable level. That British trawler operators chose to sell their quotas to foreign operators rather than land less than what they'd previously been used to was their own choice, just as it had been their choice to overfish in the 1960s and 70s despite being warned of the inevitable consequences.

[42656e4d203239]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

look you - stop it with your facts and history.... we'll have none of that around here especially when Brexit is on the line... after all we know what the country thinks of experts!

[Rich 11]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

*slinks away in shame*

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Rich11: What total and utter baloney. People who were part of the UK fishing industry in the 60s and 70s will beg to differ with your erroneous opinion - possibly violently!

[Rich 11]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Who killed the British fishing industry

Two takeaway points:

"The decline of the UK fishing industry has many factors behind it, with membership of the EEC and then the EU seemingly being used as a smokescreen when overfishing and flawed quota systems were much larger culprits, and the nosedive started much earlier than the UK's membership of the bloc."

"Another cause of grief among fishers in the UK has been quota allocation, but again, the way in which the quota allocated to the UK is split lays in the hands of the British government, not in Brussels, according to Greenwood, who highlights two reasons why the system does not produce a fair outcome."

The article cites its sources, so there's plenty of bedtime reading there for you. Have fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Rich 11

Good read. You are quite right. I will modify my statement:

You're brave: mentioning fish after the collapse of (what remained of) the British fishing industry post brexit? Yet another Brexit FAILURE.

I'm sure we all remember Farage's cruise up the Thames with the fishermen, promising all sort of post Brexit piscine profits. Let's ask pro-Brexit fishwife June Mummery how that sll turned out for her ...

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

A rather lopsided article which you have taken and misinterpreted. After a big decline, stock levels had stabilised and were rising at the point the UK joined the EEC. This was cancelled out when other EEC nations were allowed to expand their fleets and started to plunder what were previously UK waters, and stocks declined once again , this time to unsustainably low levels, later further fueled by the crackpot stupidity of the CFP requirement to throw back into the sea any fish below the regulation size (these were dead fish of course), so the effect on stocks was massively increased not only by the death of the huge tonnages of undersized fish, but of the need to catch a greater tonnage of fish of permitted size. This decline is clearly documented in the report in your link.

The death of the UK deep sea fishing industry was further compounded by the EEC payments for UK trawler owners to decommission their boats, but at the same time cynically encouraging them to sell those boats to other European fleets. Having successfully moved very large numbers of UK registered boats to other EEC countries fishing fleets, the EEC powers that be then decided to instigate a quota system, but not allocated to individual member countries, but allocated to boats registered in each country - all those UK registered boats now in French and Spanish fishing fleets got the lions share of the 'UK' fish quota - that is what finished off the UK deep sea fishing industry.

No doubt you will all once again downvote reality as you always do, but it won't change it.

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

I am old enough to know the decline started long before that but it took a serious downturn after Brexit.

The large pelagic trawlers (Tait family) destroyed pelagic stocks in the 70s/80s and the catches went to fishmeal. Those people destroyed stocks but became millionaires.

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

I see 12 people do not appear to have any knowledge of the UK fishing industry and its subsequent destruction at the hands of the EU. Downvoting history won't change it!

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

And downvoting again won't change it either!!!!

It is staggering the degree to which some on these boards repeatedly demonstrate their complete ignorance of reality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

The fact there are actually people who believe that trade from outside the EU is banned from inside the EU is extremely concerning. One can only assume the poster is under the influence of lead in the water supply or something.

As for the other claim about food would be more expensive after leaving the EU, it is actually more expensive after leaving the EU.

Britain is getting so desperate to tame inflation it’s talking about food price caps

A highlighted paragraph but please read the whole article:

Brexit is responsible for about a third of UK food price inflation since 2019, according to researchers at the London School of Economics.

[iRadiate]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

So ⅔ has nothing to do with brexit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

There's your Brexit dividend right there.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"So ⅔ has nothing to do with brexit."

Probably true, but is also nothing to do with the EU either. It's mainly external factors also affecting the EU, eg fuel prices since Russia invaded and went to war with Ukraine.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@AC

"Brexit is responsible for about a third of UK food price inflation since 2019, according to researchers at the London School of Economics."

So the claim is that brexit caused the inflation we see world wide? Thats a new one.

"The fact there are actually people who believe that trade from outside the EU is banned from inside the EU is extremely concerning."

That is very different from what I said. You are arguing against your own straw man

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

""Brexit is responsible for about a third of UK food price inflation since 2019, according to researchers at the London School of Economics."

So the claim is that brexit caused the inflation we see world wide? "

I note your comprehension is zero, as usual.

I know it is difficult for you to understand but "UK" and "world wide" are not the same.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@gandalfcn

"I note your comprehension is zero, as usual.

I know it is difficult for you to understand but "UK" and "world wide" are not the same."

I know you have been following me like some love sick troll but I actually think you might mean this. That the world is not the UK was my point, the same problem is world wide and doesnt stop at our border

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Just to step in here, it's pretty obvious here, that everyone acknowledges that there is global food price inflation, and it is also pretty obvious that whet is being referred to here is the additional 50% food price inflation in the UK that brexit has been established to have caused. Word tricks and sophistry aside, techniques at which you excel, everyone can see and acknowledge that, except you.

Nobody is claiming that the UK leaving the EU has caused global food prices to rise, so you are arguing against a straw man there.

It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has caused UK food prices to rise more than global food prices, so to claim otherwise means taking the path of "unreasonable doubt".

So which one are you going for? Straw man argument, argument based on unreason, or pure sophistry?

I'm sure you have one of your usual techniques to hand, for example "proof" in the form of an opinion piece written by an ex-UKIP councillor writing in their parish newsletter, or equivalent, presented as inalienable fact, or the claim that you have previously "proved" this, and it is the reader's job to go and find, read, and agree with such "proof", if the claimed "proof" even exists.

We're wise to you, we've seen you here before...

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Elongated Muskrat

"and it is also pretty obvious that whet is being referred to here is the additional 50% food price inflation in the UK that brexit has been established to have caused"

Established? Tell me more. According to the AC I was replying to the claim is a third of the rise is being blamed on brexit instead of printing vast amounts of money and buggering the economy for covid.

"Nobody is claiming that the UK leaving the EU has caused global food prices to rise, so you are arguing against a straw man there."

I know they are not. Instead they are blaming inflation on brexit when there is an inflation problem around the world. So why would countries who reacted in a similar way over covid suffer a similar problem? The answer is apparently covid policies except for the UK which is magically down to brexit? It makes no sense.

"It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has caused UK food prices to rise more than global food prices, so to claim otherwise means taking the path of "unreasonable doubt"."

Nope. Inflation being a disease of money is fairly established. Instead we had farmers complaining that they would go out of business because we would be importing cheaper than they can produce.

"We're wise to you, we've seen you here before..."

Then do better

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"printing vast amounts of money and buggering the economy for covid"

Wasn't this something that was touted as a benefit of Brexit?

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Wasn't this something that was touted as a benefit of Brexit?"

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

codejunky: "No"

Remind us what the actual benefits of (failed) Brexit were then, if you don't mind, old fellow.

[Nifty]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that [Brexit] has caused UK food prices to rise more than global food prices"

Food inflation in the UK was significantly lower than Germany, Portugal or Sweden till April this year. There's been a sharp falling back for the EU group in year to May/June. You'll be seeing a lot of people quoting the June and later figures now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65962497

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

So the claim is that brexit caused the inflation we see world wide? Thats a new one.

Are you recovering from a brain hemorrhage codejunky? Do you need help with basic concepts like "UK" and "worldwide"? Just let us know if that's the case and we'll send you the Ladybird Book of Brexit or a similar book at the same reading level.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@AC

"Are you recovering from a brain hemorrhage codejunky? Do you need help with basic concepts like "UK" and "worldwide"? Just let us know if that's the case and we'll send you the Ladybird Book of Brexit or a similar book at the same reading level."

Are you the AC who mentions inflation in the UK as caused by brexit when inflation is happening around the world? Maybe your books are duff or you need to read them yourself

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"The fact there are actually people who believe that trade from outside the EU is banned from inside the EU is extremely concerning"Blame the Mail and Torygraph, and the Daily Brexhpress.

The Daily Express has deleted 70 archived pro-Brexit news stories from between 2017 and 2020,

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

codejunky comes across like a Moscow Mule.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Comes over all Tim Worstall too.

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Mr. Farty Towels of Torquay?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

codejunky comes across like a Moscow Mule.

What, all vodka, lime & ginger beer? Doesn't sound that bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Vote for the people running the country. Trade outside of the EU 'accepted'.

And the post-Brexit bullshit continues to flow forth. Give it a rest, you melts!

[GioCiampa]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@codejunky

re: "Vote for the people running the country."

Are you talking about Prime Ministers?

How much of the population directly voted for this PM to assume power? (Arguably none at all, given MPs only indicated support rather than actually voting, but even then it was only a few hundred)

The one before that? (Around 142,000 as it went to the party membership)

Before that? (Around 139,000)

Or are you talking about elections? We've had plenty of those... and in both national and continental versions the people we directly vote for go on to decide (or have a major influence on) who runs things (see above), so our system is just as bad as the one you seem to be decrying...

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Quite. I get to vote on who gets to be my local MP. Needless to say, we've elected a decent human being who isn't a member of the current "ruling"* party.

*It's actually their job to serve the electorate, not rule them, but that's not what they seem to believe.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"Are you talking about Prime Ministers?"

You dont vote for a PM, you vote for a party. And you actually get regular votes.

"How much of the population directly voted for this PM to assume power? (Arguably none at all, given MPs only indicated support rather than actually voting, but even then it was only a few hundred)

The one before that? (Around 142,000 as it went to the party membership)

Before that? (Around 139,000)"

And how many voted for Ursula? Zip zero nadda. Instead she was the only candidate put forward in a very dodgy looking backroom deal and you will like it. Being at a time when the EU was banging on about tying to be more democratic

[GioCiampa]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@codejunky

We didn't vote for Rishi in EXACTLY the same way as we didn't vote for Ursula... he was the only candidate left standing after the 1922 Committee shenanighans.

What's the difference?

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"We didn't vote for Rishi in EXACTLY the same way as we didn't vote for Ursula"

Our recollection seems to be wildly different. Was there an election for the Tories? Was there any election for Ursula? How many parties could be voted for in the UK? How many candidates were presented as an option for EU President?

"he was the only candidate left standing after the 1922 Committee shenanighans."

I too agree Truss should have stayed but a lot of the country seemed to disagree.

"What's the difference?"

Imagine the UK isnt particularly democratic. Then it says it will try to appear more democratic. Then the only option is Corbyn for example. No party, no options just Blair. Nobody to choose just an installed leader such as Boris. I dont care who you would least like, whoever it is just gets put in without any option. Big difference. You might dislike the UK system, feel free I am not defending it, but it is very different than an unpopular and not very good politician just taking the slot.

Imagine comes the next 'election' the only option is Farage and no other options at all, not even a question asked, just installed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Complaining about the EU when you don't have any idea how it works..

You know that when the UK was part of the civilized world, it had some influence on who could lead the EU?

That decisions made by the EU require all the members governments to agree for sensible topics?

(you'll note by the way that they keep the site available in English, although no sensible person in the EU use it as native language)

Come back when you have read the full content of the site, and provide links for all your assertions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Upvoted but I have to disagree with one part of your post, the Irish seem sensible enough.

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

".......the Irish seem sensible enough......"

Only if you ask them a question twice ;)

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@AC

"That decisions made by the EU require all the members governments to agree for sensible topics?

Wtf are you talking about? Come back when its a reply to my comment

"(you'll note by the way that they keep the site available in English, although no sensible person in the EU use it as native language)"

Probably for the same reason during brexit one of the idiots wanted to tell a joke about how irrelevant English will be after brexit, but had to switch to English so the people could understand him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Probably for the same reason during brexit one of the idiots wanted to tell a joke about how irrelevant English will be after brexit, but had to switch to English so the people could understand him.

Was it you?

[GioCiampa]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Had anyone else stood against Ursula - there WOULD have been an election... just because nobody did, doesn't mean the processes aren't there.

Again... what's the difference?

(Edit: Truss? Stay??? Really?????)

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"Had anyone else stood against Ursula - there WOULD have been an election... just because nobody did, doesn't mean the processes aren't there."

So there would be an election if there was anyone out of 27 countries of mountains of bureaucrats would stand to run the EU? A contest that would have existed if the EU had used the usual spitzenkandidat process. A process that was already criticized anyway for not being particularly democratic.

Basically in the UK instead of an election as would normally happen just install Farage (pick anyone you dont like) and install them as the only runner in a contest nobody else can run.

"Again... what's the difference?"

A massive difference. In the UK we vote for a party, a party gets elected. So we had Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak but the elected party is still elected. It hasnt been replaced by labour just because, there would need to be an election. The EU has presidents (so many) and you seem pretty happy to accept she was installed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Basically in the UK instead of an election as would normally happen just install Farage (pick anyone you dont like) and install them as the only runner in a contest nobody else can run.

I picked Prince Charles as head of state for the UK!!!

Democracy at its UK finest!!

I also voted for Peruvian Daniel Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere, to represent me in the 2nd chamber. Result!

[nobody who matters]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

King Charles III is not a good example to pick - he has no actual power or control over UK government - yes he could decline to give Royal Assent to a Bill passed by Parliament and presented for his signature. However, the protocols in place would require him to abdicate if he did so.

[GioCiampa]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@codejunky

We also voted for parties at a European level (back in the day) - and it is those very MEPs who approved von der Leyen's nomination (by 383 votes to 327) so no different, therefore, from the process for electing Sunak, or Truss, or Johnson (as opposed to later going to the country) or May (likewise). If anything, it could be argued that her election was more democratic (at that stage) as it involved input from all parts of the political spectrum, but it is still a matter of a few hundred people making the decision.

Did I say I was happy with the process? No.

Did I draw parallels? Yes

Are you calling one "good", and one "bad", when the process is essentially the same? Yes

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"We also voted for parties at a European level (back in the day)"

And nobody had any idea who anyone was bar Farage. That is how great we cared.

"and it is those very MEPs who approved von der Leyen's nomination (by 383 votes to 327)"

The only candidate? As we already discussed and so very different no matter how many times you say its the same.

"If anything, it could be argued that her election was more democratic (at that stage)"

No. How many people at all voted for Ursula as the EU system is a presidential one. The UK system is a party system and the UK voted for the party.

"Did I say I was happy with the process? No."

Thats ok we have left and so dont suffer under it anymore

"Are you calling one "good", and one "bad", when the process is essentially the same? Yes"

Except its not the same. Lets just install Farage and that would be the same. Not a party, not elected, just someone installed in the position.

[GioCiampa]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@codejunky

The nomination to the post comes from the European Council - consisting of the heads of state of the member countries.

So 46 voters decide who is put forward, and 600 voters approve that choice.

In our system ~350 Tory MPs (in the last few cases) select two candidates , and ~140,000 party members select from the two.

Whether it is a "presidential" contest or otherwise is irrelevant - we still have a tiny minority of people choosing the leader. That is my issue - with both.

[gandalfcn]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Guess its a matter of perspective." Interestingly that is what followers of the Flat Earth cult endlessly parrot. Go figure.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@gandalfcn

"Interestingly that is what followers of the Flat Earth cult endlessly parrot. Go figure."

I wouldnt know, but thanks for sharing your experience.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

I wouldnt know

Really? The Venn diagram for MAGA/QAnon/FlatEarth is quite tight.

WWG1WGA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

That's a stupid reply... even from you.

[Andy 73]

Weird perspective

We are always making choices over who controls our rights - and despite the views of some moral absolutists, it's always a compromise.

It's completely false logic that somehow one set of beuracrats are magically benign, and another evil. These days they're largely all captured by lobbyists and vested interests. The largest poilitical driver for GDPR was about trying to reduce the commercial dominance of American companies, not handing more rights to citizens.

Whether we're in or out of the EU (boring subject), the discussion should be about both rights and the consequences and complexities of enforcement - not a silly pretence that an individual group "knows best".

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Weird perspective

"Whether we're in or out of the EU (boring subject)"

Only boring if (a) it has no consequences either way or (b) it has bad consequences which it would be embarrassing to have to discuss.

[Andy 73]

Re: Weird perspective

No, boring because some people are so deeply embedded with their viewpoint that they will not permit more moderate views to be entertained.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Weird perspective

When we argue against such people, we are not expecting or even hoping to change their minds. We argue against demonstrably incorrect views, so that other readers, who we assume are not idiots, can see that those views are false, and see the evidence against them.

Any deeply entrenched opinion needs justification, and not being able to adjust your views when new evidence comes to light is a sure-fire sign of faith over reason (this is also known as the scientific method). If we refrain from demonstrating evidence against sophistry, then the often beguiling but false arguments persuade others to also believe these things that are false.

You may then argue that it doesn't really matter what other people think, a person's beliefs are their own, and this is indeed true. However, when people act on their beliefs, against fact and reason, bad things are prone to happen. World wars, removal of women's rights, demonisation of minorities, that sort of thing.

[codejunky]

Re: Weird perspective

@Elongated Muskrat

"When we argue against such people, we are not expecting or even hoping to change their minds. We argue against demonstrably incorrect views, so that other readers, who we assume are not idiots, can see that those views are false, and see the evidence against them."

Did you lift that from one of my previous posts or have you come to the same conclusion?

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Weird perspective

@CJ, when you can present something that even remotely resembles evidence to support your assertions, and indeed respond to valid points raised by others, without switching arguments, or repeating false ones, then you can join the adults' table.

[codejunky]

Re: Weird perspective

@Elongated Muskrat

"@CJ, when you can present something that even remotely resembles evidence to support your assertions, and indeed respond to valid points raised by others, without switching arguments, or repeating false ones, then you can join the adults' table."

So I am guessing you are parroting then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weird perspective

>So I am guessing you are parroting then.

This from the Tufton Street Psittaciforme. Hilarious. Someone get him/her a cracker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weird perspective

Honestly - BREXIT happened years ago, so can we all be grown-ups and stop the perpetual navel gazing and look up? BREXIT happened because a) Cameron only asked for a majority to vote for it and b) Only 72.21% of those who could have voted, bothered to. I'm ignoring the lies spread on both sides of the argument. Many also thought the EU would be "fair" in any subsequent agreement, but no surprise - they were not and why should they have been? Maybe the referendum target should have been 67% instead of 50% to allow for the inevitable grief. Too late for that now - it is done. And why isn't vitriol being directed at the 27.79% who couldn't be bothered to vote rather than the majority who voted to leave? I'm not saying the result would have been different, but maybe the percentage would have been bigger either way. As it was a majority vote, the leavers won out of those who made the effort to indicate their preference. I suspect the fact that it was so close, is why it is a wound remainers want to keep it open, but it is done, finished, closed. Can we please move on? Sure there are many many problems, but isn't fixing them on our new path more important than remainers whining on incessantly about 'we woz robbed." It is getting really boring now.

And for the Boris haters, he was the only one who actually grabbed the jacket by the lapels and got things done - as voted for by a large majority of the UK voting public. He had a large mandate and closed the book. Was it perfect? Nope. Could it have been a lot better? Sure, but that would have required the EU to be more accommodating which they were never going to be. The were on a mission to make sure it was as bad as could be arranged. If it was reasonable, other countries would have considered leaving the cabal. They have a fiefdom to preserve at all costs. And sure, the EU would probably welcome us back if we asked, but they would likely make us pay heavily for the privilege to be allowed back in to their club. If you think we were milked before by being the second biggest NET contributor, just wait to see how big the financial bill would be a second time. I remain unconvinced the previous 'benefits' outweighed the net financial cost, but that's my opinion and you have yours. Free speech and all that. Wait, free speech? Oops, I forgot about all the Groupthink telling me what I must think and that BREXIT can only have been bad. I guess my free speech lives only in my head.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weird perspective

>Groupthink

You are Dom Cum and I claim my £5.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Weird perspective

A few , such as the junky, most do facts not opinions. The latter are the Mail/Express/Telegraph readers. See Johnson, kicked yet again fo lying.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: Weird perspective

-- somehow one set of beuracrats are magically benign, and another evil--

ALL bureaucrats are evil - administrators are good until they become bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

the deliberately misleading* slogan of taking back control.

That hasn't stopped arch-EU proponent and anti-Brexit negotiator Donald Tusk from borrowing it for his Polish presidential campaign!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you want to take back control from right-wing Catholic God-botherers PIS if you were Polish and had the chance?

[alain williams]

What Brexit has done is to expose us to more exploitation from rabid UK governments that pass bad laws on the basis of jingoism.

The EU might be a slow moving behemoth of bureaucracy but it does, by and large, see to protect EU citizens.

[Anonymous Coward]

it does, by and large, see to protect EU citizens.

Mostly by treating them like they're 10 years old, and daren't be given responsibilty for anything more challenging than deciding what colour shoes to wear.

Some of us prefer to be treated like adults, even if that means having the freedom to make, and learn from, our own mistakes.

[Graham Cobb]

You are welcome to make, and learn from, your own mistakes.

But I require my politicians to learn from worldwide best practice - their mistakes have devastatingly large consequences so must not happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the downvoting sheeple are out in force. Isn't it past your bedtime?

[gandalfcn]

I find 'UK in a Changing Europe' to be a good source of information and facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay - yet more laws

So… US laws, EU laws and now UK laws?

This needs to be harmonized, not fragmented. It’s confusing and expensive for everyone (except lawyers)

[theblackhand]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

Harmonizing EU and US data laws? 1998 called, admires your optimism and thinks it might just have a way around this mess....

25 years later and 4 workarounds that have been dismissed by European courts (correctly - it's difficult to dispute their arguments) as unsatisfactory, here we are with neither party prepared or likely to move and yet somehow, multinational business must go on.

I'm ignoring the UK because the best they can do in this is choose a side.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

"I'm ignoring the UK because the best they can do in this is choose a side."

Except it seems the UK isn't choosing a side and is trying to genetically engineer some bastard child of US and EU data protection legislation that nether side will be impressed by and both will feel free to ignore since the UK is tiny compared to both the EU and US.

[Plest]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

"except lawyers"?

Hmm, well now, isn't it interesting that a lot of MPs studied and practiced law before they became politicians? Could it be that all this red tape could make a lot of friends still in the law biz will make a ton of money with cross border business contracts?

Nah, perish the thought!

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

Some of them, maybe, but you're more likely to find ones with an otherwise useless PPE degree, which tends to go hand-in-hand with former membership of the Bullingdon Club, and a school career at Harrow or Eton.

I'd say that having a Law degree goes some way towards proving the intelligence of the holder, but then there's Suella Braverman.

[Terry 6]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

The way the education and exam system is structured, having a law degree (especially if fully qualified to practice) mostly requires a good memory to rote learn your way through GCSE/A Level/University, a tutor, or even better a private school helps a lot, public school even more so. And good contacts. Training contracts and pupillage are hard to get. Unless daddy knows someone.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

And how do you intend to harmonise Christofascism in the USA with a democratic EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yay - yet more laws

If we ever get a democratic EU we'll let you know.

[EvaQ]

What a strange letter:

"In light of the serious threat to European citizens’ rights, the European Commission ... "

The EC is about the EU, and thus EU citizens. Not about "European" citizens, like UK and Belarus.

A letter to EC should just say: "If the UK continues with this, please revoke the equivalance, to protect EU citizens".

[Arthur the cat]

The EC is about the EU, and thus EU citizens. Not about "European" citizens, like UK and Belarus.

All your country are belong to us.

[doublelayer]

I find this quibbling about terminology rather strange. A lot of arguing over someone using the word "Europe" when they mean "The EU", even though we all know what they meant. There are a lot of terms in English where we could use a strict definition that few others are using despite everyone knowing what was meant, but it's rarely helpful. For example, people or things are sometimes characterized as British, meaning they're from or in the UK. However, technically British means from Britain, so if they're Northern Irish or from one of the non-Britain UK islands, I could argue that they're not really British. It wouldn't help anyone if I did that, because we know that is included.

In this case, the terms are even harder, because what the sentence really should say is "In light of the serious threat to the rights of those who have them under GDPR". Noncitizens resident in the EU have those rights as well. Citizens of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are also covered because they've adopted it, even though they're only EEA, not EU, members. Turkey and Switzerland have laws that are similar to GDPR in an effort to be harmonized with EU regulations, so they might have rights or might not. And, if we're going even further, there are threats to the rights of British, sorry UK citizens, even though the EU commission has no power or intent to do anything about those threats, they're still there if the law is weakened. When you read a statement, do you want a paragraph listing all these technicalities, or can we agree to accept text when we all understand what they meant?

[nobody who matters]

I am sorry, but I don't think I understood all of that :)

[doublelayer]

The comment by EvaQ appeared to be primarily complaining about the use of the word "European" when the actual meaning was "European Union". This is not the first time a discussion like that has started when there is something real being talked about. For example, some people will describe the result of the Brexit referendum as "leaving Europe", and others will kindly reply that it really means "leaving the European Union", and that "leaving Europe" would be much more complicated. As correct as that pedantic reply is, it isn't really doing anything for the original conversation.

To illustrate this, I pointed out that, in the EU's statement where the offending "European" appeared, to be entirely correct about who is covered and who is not by the rest of the sentence, you'd probably have to put a paragraph of extra conditions in place of the one word, but that everyone reading the statement understood with perfect clarity what they were trying to say.

[Rich 11]

"leaving Europe" would be much more complicated.

It would involve a lot of digging so that we could have our own continental shelf.

[Phil O'Sophical]

It wouldn't be a Continental shelf, it would be a British one...

[nobody who matters]

You presumably had a sense-of-humour failure, and didn't take my comment as the joke it was intended to be.

Sorry.

[John Brown (no body)]

"everyone reading the statement understood with perfect clarity what they were trying to say."

So, to put it in a nutshell, context is everything :-)

[John H Woods]

Metonomy

Exactly. When we say something will have to be decided by the suits, call for boots on the ground or talk about Threadneedle St or Westminster, everyone understands what is meant.

In this context it in absolutely obvious that Europe is a metonymy for the EU and anyone quibbling about it is, quite frankly, a fool rather than a pedant.

[Eclectic Man]

Subject Rights?

Will us UK people still have the rights to a Subject Access Request and to have incorrect data on us corrected as the current UK GDPR allows? I ask because when I was being pestered with utility company bills for someone else the only thing that worked was to send them a formal letter requiring them to remove my personal data (my name and address) from the account as their continued wrongful processing of it was causing me distress, and any failure of them to do so would result in a formal complaint to the ICO. Previous requests and their assurances had failed, so the GDPR and the ICO were my last resort.

[Mishak]

Re: Subject Rights?

Good question - and I like the way you used it to get them off your back!

[abend0c4]

Re: Subject Rights?

IANAL (and the law is yet to be finalised), but...

Under the GDPR legislation, a data controller could refuse or charge for an SAR that was "manifestly unfounded or excessive". The new wording is "vexatious or excessive".

So, it would presumably depend on whether the utility company thought you were being snarky.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Subject Rights?

A utility company would be hard pressed to deny a Subject Access Request that required something like "All information you hold on me pertaining to my account". They can refuse requests that would breach data protection laws for other named individuals, however they would need a good reason for refusing data on the subject.

If a utility decided on the basis that complying with an SAR was too onerous (which is a defence) then I would advise asking for what lawful purpose they collected the data, and how they use it efficiently for that purpose and how come they cannot use their internal efficiency to provide the information to me. After all it is illegal to collect personal data for no lawful purpose, and if they cannot demonstrate a lawful purpose they are admitting guilt. If they claim it is too onerous to provide the data to you, they have to explain how they can afford a process for the use themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Subject Rights?

> After all it is illegal to collect personal data for no lawful purpose, and if they cannot demonstrate a lawful purpose they are admitting guilt.

Try and get the ICO to do something about that..........I have tried and got nowhere......

360+ orgs sharing special category personal data on a daily basis for the past 10 years (it is more like 600+ orgs now) where there was **no** formal agreement (including defining lawful purposes and lawful bases) in place at all for the first 4 years, then 6 years ago 11 of the (360+) orgs signed an agreement (that was intended to be signed by all the 360+ orgs). More organisations have joined the sharing since then to get to approx 600+ organisations currently yet still the only "notional" agreement for the sharing has only been agreed by 11 of those orgs.

ICO doesn't care, won't do anything about. The unlawful sharing continues on a daily basis...

[Cynical Pie]

Re: Subject Rights?

There is no statutory requirement to have a formal data sharing process despite what the ICO may lead folk to believe.

Information Sharing Agreements are seen as a 'need to have' when in fact that isn't the case - they are best practice and a way for organisations to record/audit their processing and nothing more

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Subject Rights?

> There is no statutory requirement to have a formal data sharing process despite what the ICO may lead folk to believe.

I wasn't referring to the ICO in that regard, I was referring to evidence of the existance of a Joint Data Controller relationship. Note that GDPR Article 26(2) refers to "The essence of this arrangement shall be made available to the data subject" - the "essence" would include details of orgs involved, the defined purposes, and the defined lawful bases.

With both the UK DPA 1998 and GDPR if organisations are entering into a Joint Data Controller relationship then how can the "terms" of that relationship be decided/agreed (and proven/confirmed years later) by all members of said relationship if no document exists that states which defined details exactly which organisations actually entered into the relationship, lawful purposes defined, which Schedule 2 & 3 / GDPR Article 6(1) & Article 9(2) bases have been agreed, etc if there is no formal document recording the established Joint Data Controller relationship?

That's actually the underlying issue I've encountered - the "central" org is claiming that UK DPA 1998 Schedule 2 & 3 Public Function were used right from the very start.......but have failed to provide any evidence (i.e. an agreement document) of what exactly *all* the organisations who allegedly entered into a Joint Controller relationship in 2013, actually agreed upon, or that the relationship even existed in the first place.

When they were asked by the ICO for evidence of what Schedule 2/3 bases where used right from the start in 2013 they eventually produced a *draft* Data Sharing Agreement that was never signed by any of the orgs which didn't "explicitly" (in their words) state any Schedule 2/3 bases but they pointed to what appeared to be a definition of a lawful purpose and claimed that *implied* that Public Function was the basis (which is BS as orgs could use various Schedule 2/3 bases for the same lawful purpose, there is no direct correlation between purpose & basis, that's why both have to be defined).

To put this in context, the same org physically met ICO in 2019 for a 2 hour meeting to discuss changing the Joint Controller relationship's basis from UK DPA 1998 Schedule 2(1) & Schedule 3(1) "Consent" to GDPR Article 6(1) "Public Task" and Article 9(2)(h) Health - this meeting was minuted by the ICO. Fast-forward a couple of years to when the org is claiming Public Function/Public Task has always been the only basis ("We have always been at war with Eastasia...") and once the conflicting 2019 IOC meeting minutes are produced they then say "There clearly has been a misunderstanding collectively on our part on the legal basis applicable by <project> since the project was initiated" but again restate they only used Public Function/Public Task from the start.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Subject Rights?

Requiring an utility company to provide you any information is vexatious.

They already send you a bill on a regular basis, what do you want besides that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Subject Rights?

failure of them to do so would result in a formal complaint to the ICO.

I'll bet that had them quaking in their boots. A smack on the corporate wrist and fined 20 minutes profit?

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Subject Rights?

Profit, after taxes and shareholder dividends, minus IP licensing costs to the overseas parent holding company in the Bahamas. Rounded up, that's nought pounds and noughty-nought pence, please.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Subject Rights?

"A smack on the corporate wrist and fined 20 minutes profit?"

Utility companies don't have profits. They just have billions in debt that is suspiciously close to the value of their accumulated shareholder dividends. Allegedly.

[Cynical Pie]

Re: Subject Rights?

yeah good luck complaining to the ICO.

The current commissioner is more interested in soundbites and blocking critics on social media than actually enforcing the GDPR.

[Spanners]

Can it just be delayed?

There is a good possibility that "this lot" will be out on their ears and we get some grown-ups in instead.

Otherwise, they will just have to infuriate the tabloids by replacing yet another piece of faulty legislation with a word-for-word copy of what was there before.

If they shuffle it off to some committees, it can keep us safe for now.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

There is a good possibility that "this lot" will be out on their ears and we get some grown-ups in instead.

Old 60s saying: it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's always the government in power.

Mass surveillance, like ID cards, is an obsession of the Home Office and both crop up regularly no matter what party is nominally in control. Home Secretaries go native in about 12 months, due to a Civil Service brain washing regime of "this will reduce the crime figures, it would be a brave decision refusing to take the opportunity to catch criminals/drug dealers/terrorists/paedophiles". The only way to stop it would be to disband the existing Home Office hierarchy and move the top mandarins to posts dealing with areas like Northern Ireland community relations or hands on DEFRA inspection of fish gutting operations as punishment for being the enemy within.

This is never going to happen so expect proposed legislation for mass surveillance and/or ID cards to crop up again and again. Democracy needs to win every time, the bastards only need to win once.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

Indeed it seems that taking up the position of Home Secretary is accompanied by brain altering transformations.

All Home Secretaries, regardless of party, seem to evolve into paranoid ‘think of the children’, ‘stop and search’, ‘CCTV everywhere’, ‘immigrants are evil’ personae.

I can’t think of a single Home Secretary over the past 40 years that inspired anything approaching trust or competence.

Here they are:

William Whitelaw

Leon Brittan

Douglas Hurd

David Waddington

Kenneth Baker

Kenneth Clarke

Michael Howard

Jack Straw

David Blunkett

Charles Clarke

John Reid

Jacqui Smith

Alan Johnson

Theresa May

Amber Rudd

Sajid Javid

Priti Patel

Suella Braverman

Grant Shapps

Suella Braverman

The only ones I might possibly have any time for are Ken Clarke and Alan Johnson the rest were just horrible.

As always, be careful what you vote for … but do ensure you vote .. otherwise you may get the wrong lizard.

[Claverhouse]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

I've generally noted that --- certainly from the beginning of your list --- each Home Secretary is worse than his or her immediate predecessor.

Odd, but true.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

Grud alone knows what they'll find to replace Cruella with when she finally goes. Is Davros available?

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

I did some consultancy for the Probation Service. They have a risk assessment form they use on new probationers, and Home Secretaries. It seems that the Home Secretaries are all high risk and should be locked up.

[Terry 6]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

Home secretaries, whatever their personal and party viewpoints have to deal with the public perception of law and order. Irrespective of what any kind of research might say this means a strong belief that all kinds of crime are increasing - especially the personal violent stuff, locking more people up for longer reduces crime, that our NHS services are full up because of the "immigrants" and so on.

No one ever won votes by saying we should try to rehabilitate prisoners and spend more on treatment or drug programmes.

[short a sandwich]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

The chaps who saw war service who were Home Secretary in the 70's and 80's used to tell them to jog on. The civil servants and chief constables could never put a convincing argument together for mass surveillance nor ID cards. The current crop since the 90's don't have this experience and didn't learn from their elders. We need a set of politicians who understand why we shouldn't have these things due to the risk that they pose to the populace from future nutters in power.

[Cynical Pie]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

The problem we have now is that back in the 70s, 80's and early 90's most, if not all MPs had been working elsewhere prior to rocking up at Westminster.

Now we have a class of professional politicians, many of which only have 'real world' experience as a parliamentary researcher or the like - they have never worked anywhere other than the Westminster bubble.

God forbid we go back to previous iterations of parliament where the Minister for Health was a health professional!!

Yes I know that wasn't always the case but a lot of the time it was and we can't say parliament was the worse for it, especially given the current bunch of chancers, fraudsters and charlatans on all sides of the House

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

Yet, somehow, our current Home Sec. seems to have an actual law degree, and have worked as an actual lawyer, which goes to show something, I'm just not sure what.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

Well, just as not every police officer is 'Dixon of Dock Green', not every lawyer is 'Rumpole of the Bailey'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_of_Dock_Green

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

It's my belief that one has to actually demonstrate an understanding of the law to pass the bar exam. The fact that our Home Sec seems to keep having trouble proposing things that are actually legal calls this into question.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

-- DEFRA inspection of fish gutting operations --

I regret I can only give one upvote

[nobody who matters]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

".....There is a good possibility that "this lot" will be out on their ears and we get some grown-ups in instead....."

I admire your unbounded optimism.

[42656e4d203239]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

>>I admire your unbounded optimism.

Especially as "The Other Lot" seem to be morphing into "This Lot" daily - guys 1984 was a warning, not a playbook!

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

And Starmer comes across as someone who can't or won't tell us anything about what he stands for. He seems to be a permanent fence sitter with no idea what "the people" want and so refuses to say what he wants in case he alienates any voters. At this stage, I don't think he makes a better choice as a future leader. Voting always seems to be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils and things are not improving.

[42656e4d203239]

Re: Can it just be delayed?

I am amazed that I didn't get any downvotes for "1984" rather than "Animal Farm" but I guess they are both applicable!

[Marki Mark]

get some grown-ups in instead You sure about that?

[Howard Sway]

turning the UK into a 'test lab' for experimental and abusive uses of data

Data = Money is the thinking behind this. Therefore, if you let companies get richer by feasting on personal data, the hope is that they'll move here to harvest it. However, the UK will have to then become an offshore processing centre for data on US citizens and countries with similarly weak privacy protections. Similar to tax havens, we'll become a data haven.

The big gamble is yet again that by shutting the door to EU business (which this will guarantee), the rest of the world will make up for it. But that's a lot of business to lose, and ditching all your customers in the hope of acquiring a completely new set of them is, to put it mildly, one hell of a risky business strategy, that's going to take a long time to pay off, even if it works.

And frankly, the world does not seem to be moving in the direction of loving the free for all of mass data harvesting by corporations : people are waking up to the abuses that this lack of privacy enables, and wanting something done about it. See California's current attempt to clamp down on them for example. With each dumb move like this, Britain maroons itself in bad ideas that already look out of date as the world changes.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: turning the UK into a 'test lab' for experimental and abusive uses of data

"the hope is that they'll move here to harvest it."

A vain hope if ever there was one.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Re: turning the UK into a 'test lab' for experimental and abusive uses of data

Given that South Africa has a more permissive regime than this - and has had for years - perhaps studying how well it works there might just be an easier way to go on?

It would be amusing to see the USA to stop data flow because it considers the UK doesn't have adequate protection, though I don't think that'll happen for a few years yet.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: turning the UK into a 'test lab' for experimental and abusive uses of data

It would be simpler if the UK joined the USA as 4 different states (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and if they behave England).

It would have the extra benefit of getting rid of the royals and the lords...

[wyatt]

Meh, this bill is bollocks as anyone who wants to do business with the EU will still have to meet the requirements of the EU GDPR.

So, do you have a 2 tiered system within your business or just crack on as before?

Then you have all the scumbags flogging your data- cheers gov for screwing us again.

[Doctor Syntax]

"as anyone who wants to do business with the EU will still have to meet the requirements of the EU GDPR"

And the easiest way of doing that will be by moving to the EU.

[Andy 73]

Yet..

Yet you're still here, despite your many posts in favour of the EU - why could that be?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Yet..

I'm retired. I no longer run a business. However if I were running a business I might have had to reconsider location. And if I were an employee of a business that depended on trade with the EU and relied on an adequacy situation I'd be very worried indeed. I'm old enough that I can probably see out my time here without too much personal inconvenience.

My children and grandchildren have dual citizenship (as will have any future great grandchildren) so they have a degree of flexibility.

[Andy 73]

Re: Yet..

It's a bit of a parochial viewpoint isn't it? My family have lived and worked in Europe, India, Asia, North and South America - and never obsessed about citizenship or where their children (and grandchildren!) should live..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yet..

Freeloaders, then?

Or migrants?

Or worse, plutocrats?

[Terry 6]

Freedom

The "Freedoms" and "control" we gained by leaving the EU were carefully never specified. Instead there were a bunch of shibboleths; control of our borders,straight cucumbers and of course freedom to save a few paltry million in contributions by paying considerably more in lost opportunities, border controls and so forth.

[LogicGate]

Re: Freedom

But you have happier fish now! ..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Freedom

Manx fishermen are happy, they got their quota back!

[LogicGate]

Re: Freedom

They bought back the quotas that they previously sold off?

Do they have someone to sell their fish to now?

-just interested

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Freedom

They lost their herring quota under the Common Fisheries Policy, but have now had it reassigned to them by the UK government. I shouldn't think they'll have a problem selling herring, either fresh or as Manx kippers.

[deive]

Re: Freedom

By happy, I assume you mean dead?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64242217

[LogicGate]

Re: Freedom

https://youtu.be/OlcilAUNNVQ (Daily fail, also available from guardian)

[Roj Blake]

Re: Freedom

Don't forget the blue passports that we could have had anyway!

[heyrick]

Re: Freedom

They're not even blue. The colour is more like what you end up with if a child takes all the paints and mixes them together. It's a sort of vaguely midnight blue tinged frankenblack.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Freedom

Are they still issued in the name of the late Queen?

(that may explain the frankenblack)

[s. pam]

Wot could possibly go wrong?

If the forthcoming Digital Rights Act is any measure, this will be a total cluster flock of epic proportions.

There's zero reason to step out of a mutually beneficial data privacy law.

Utter fuckwittery

[Fred Daggy]

Re: Wot could possibly go wrong?

Based on past evidence, by an interested outsider, any Data Act will be a green light for local vested interests to feast. Industries and actual protections for proles be damned. So long as the rich get richer. The only tiny upside is that they will be LOCAL and not outside vested interests.

Sadly, unless it is a GDPR, from the real EU, it is only Data Harvesting light and cannot use the name GDPR.

That seems to be what has happened in other jurisdictions that have so-called *Data Protection" legislations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Claburn.....You Need Some Help!!!

Title: UK's proposed alt.GDPR will turn Britain into a 'test lab' for data harvesting

It ALWAYS WAS a centre for "data harvesting"...............

GDPR was always A JOKE!!

(1) Absolutely no enforcement

(2) And stuff like this:

- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/gchq-data-collection-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules

- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act

Please Thomas......get some help!!!!!!!!!!

[deive]

Re: Thomas Claburn.....You Need Some Help!!!

Without GPDR you wouldn't know what Google or GCHQ were doing.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Thomas Claburn.....You Need Some Help!!!

I am not altogether sure that we really do know; even with GDPR.

[Doctor Syntax]

According to the Computer Weekly article the adequacy agreement also covers law enforcement data. I wonder what the consequences of losing that will be.

[Yes Me]

No problem for Rikki

No problem for Rikki and his pals - that will only help the UK be an even more attractive venue for yet more financial magic, data-based crime, and tax evasion.

[Cynical Pie]

I mean its not as if most of us working in the Information Governance field haven't been saying since the Brexit vote that this would lead to us losing adequacy!!

The potential saving grace is that some larger companies will still operate to the standards of GDPR rather than the shoddy UK counterfeit version as if they operate in the EU then why would they go to the expense of running 2 different systems of information management?

That said this assumes the companies dont say 'sod this' and take their businesses out of the UK as it isnt worth the aggro.

This 'freeing from EU bureaucracy' will ultimately lead to less choice in financial services and the like as companies withdraw their products rom the UK but its OK, we have blue passports again (which we could always have had and are made in the EU)

[Anonymous Coward]

Par for the course

Reducing effective data protection is intentional, and it plays into many of the harms intended by Govt's of the future. And your ability to protest against it is being removed bit by bit as legislative law is being replaced by corporate law.

https://www.monbiot.com/2023/07/04/a-blatant-injustice/

[nobody who matters]

All the remainers resorting to insults as usual, because they can't articulate an intelligent or coherent response.

No surprise, it's always the same on these threads :(

[Strahd Ivarius]

Don't insult CodeJunky by calling him a remainer!

[Elongated Muskrat]

You are Nigel Farage, AICMFP.

What do you mean, you can't make a withdrawal from your bank?

[Anonymous Coward]

...But What About UK Personal Data? I Think We Should Be Told!

Quote: "...would enable the sharing of European personal data to other countries with reduced protections...."

Not a single direct observation in this article about "the sharing of UK personal data".............

..........or about the impact of proposed legislation on data about UK citizens.............

But then, my expectations about "data protection" in the UK are very, very low!!

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/gchq-data-collection-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Data dump, more like...

"Data hub"?! Pah, more like "data dump of the world"... instead of data lakes, we'll be leaders in data sewers!

It's important to remember that the UK Government bulldozered the DPDI Bill through Parliament with Labour nodding in ignorance like the lap dog it has become. Data protection professionals are unified in understanding that the Bill will reduce the rights of the people of the UK to know about, control and refuse the processing of their data for malicious and exploitative purposes. Hell, companies will be able to make their own judgement as to whether the data processing is necessary or not. The Bill rips up the data protection principles that the UK was championing up until Brexit.

The Government ignored the results of the consultation that took place when the Bill was created that consistently identified that is weakened rights and safeguards, created a more complicated regulatory environment, passed all risks on to organisations/business whilst also legalising the likes of the dodgy data processing that Cambridge Analytica carried out.

The new wild west of UK data protection will result in a lot more significant and damaging data security and personal data breaches. This will undermine confidence in UK companies too. This is my rationale for claiming the Bill will establish the UK as an international data dump - pumped from the sewers of the worst type of organisations (Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Palantir, United Health etc).

The Government is too inept to realise the true risk that this Bill will create for businesses and the people of the UK, and so single minded that it refuses to acknowledge expert group's very valid concerns.

My MP forwarded my concerns to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in April 2023. We are still awaiting any form of response. The arrogance of this Government to serve the people is outstanding.

But, hey it is all the "will of the people" right? I mean we are happy to come out of Brexit with no plans or strategies. We love high inflation manifest from the UK Government's deregulation of banker's bonuses, profiteering and monopolies. We get wet about pay cuts, losing jobs, homes and family. #BrexitDividend 4ever!