Gov.UK vows to chop red tape in the digital sector. What could possibly go wrong? The UK government has published its latest pile of policy-related paperwork that it claims will help shape the UK's growing digital sector. The government's grandly titled "Plan for Digital Regulation" acknowledges that technology is one of the "UK's most dynamic and important industries" contributing £151bn towards the UK …
"like killing regulations that could potentially strip the UK of its "adequate" status in data protection laws and prevent UK businesses from engaging with any personal data shared by EU citizens in a post-Brexit world."
Shhh, you're not supposed to say things like that. Remember the line, de-regulation only has benefits and definitely doesn't increase the amount of hoops which British tech companies, who invariably handle data for subjects around the world, have to jump through.
They are not thinking this through.
The low value tech e.g. IoT is going to be owned by the far East who can do cheaper and faster.
The only areas that is going to be of interest is the highly regulated sectors - military / aerospace / medical / automotive / civil engineering. This is where the value driver is quality and safety.
I hear ARM is doing a load of work on this e.g. medical to try to get IoT linked up from sensor e.g. SpO2 monitoring for Covid - all the way to the medical record - because this is what people want and need. This sounds like the sort of thing Apple / Microsoft and Google are also pursuing.
For UK companies to be able to sell products and services overseas we need aligned regulations,
@sad_loser
"For UK companies to be able to sell products and services overseas we need aligned regulations,"
Aligned with who? US? EU? China? Russia? India? Iceland?
Or is it the companies exporting would need to meet the importers standards? Which is how trade works. Its difficult to align with everyones differing regulations which all impose their own costs and not necessarily for safety or quality.
The UK was aligned with the EU, i.e. by far its biggest partner and therefore the only really important partner. EU regs had been agreed with many other countries, or were accepted as being superior. The UK niw has to either renegotiate or roll-over, i.e. no change from being in the EU.
As for the PRC, for example, we import goods that the PRC produces to agreed standards, or hadn't you noticed? The PRC has accepted EU standards for years.
What I found amusing is that the PRC's AQSIQ national standards start with GB, referred to as “GB standards”, most of which are ISO or IEC
@gandalfcn
"The UK was aligned with the EU, i.e. by far its biggest partner and therefore the only really important partner."
Oh yikes thats a terrible view to have. So our only really important partner is a sinking ship in perpetual self made crisis? I think the word we should look to is diversify. There is a growing world out there vs the EU shrinking portion of the worlds wealth.
"EU regs had been agreed with many other countries"
In the EU you mean? Or do you mean countries outside the EU who dont have their domestic economy managed by the EU yet still manage to trade with the EU?
"The UK niw has to either renegotiate or roll-over, i.e. no change from being in the EU."
How do you mean roll over? The UK doesnt have to accept the diktat of the EU because we are no longer a member. So no we dont have to roll over. In areas we do want to trade with the EU the exporting company must meet EU import rules, but then how is that different to trading with every other country on the planet?
Sounds like we got a better deal.
"As for the PRC, for example, we import goods that the PRC produces to agreed standards, or hadn't you noticed? The PRC has accepted EU standards for years."
So? If you want an example of the difference in regulation there is a recent example. The AZ vaccine has been approved and used in the UK to help deal with the pandemic. The EU still hasnt approved the vaccine as acceptable. So bureaucratic idle hands cant act fast enough or with enough sense when dealing with a pandemic.
Another advantage of not being aligned with the EU is that was demonstrated in Ireland where NI was being vaccinated but ROI could only watch because EU regs didnt approve the vaccines yet. So the Dublin minister suggesting going over the border and bringing back vaccine was shot down by the EU.
Are you saying you want to wait for the great utopia of light EU to figure out arse from elbow before having a vaccine available?
Why don't you go and have a nice chat with a shrink?
"The UK doesn't have to accept the diktat of the EU because we are no longer a member." bless. did Nige the Numpty tell you that. "diktat"? Really? You obviously have no idea what the word means. The UK an extremely powerful and influential member of the EU and was either totally and directly or very influential in the proposing, drafting and agreement of many regulations.
Before continuing to make a fool of yourself and spouting inane drivel I suggest you get an education and some real life experience.
@gandalfcn
"Why don't you go and have a nice chat with a shrink?"
I am not sure that will help your case.
"Really? You obviously have no idea what the word means"
So the EU didnt make rules the UK had to follow? Even to the detriment of the UK? The EU currently looking at taking Germany and Poland to court to make clear to these members that EU rule is supreme even if it is against a members constitution (Poland and Germany challenged EU rules in their own courts).
"The UK an extremely powerful and influential member of the EU"
Lets take that as true, a single member of how many? Cameron being sent home with nothing. Even in bailing out Greece the UK was made a promise which was swiftly forgotten. If thats extremely powerful god help the rest.
"Before continuing to make a fool of yourself and spouting inane drivel I suggest you get an education and some real life experience."
Thats cute but makes a lot of assumptions about me while you spout drivel. And I have just explained how yours is drivel, you have avoided such bar the amusing claim of our extreme power and influence. Maybe before making a fool of yourself assuming you know anything about me you should stick to the topic
Answers on a postcard belowBecause there's no way they could get a digital solution to work... .... mishak/MI5hack
Present them with one which is working with pioneering details held by the MoD [Subject: AWE20 - Formal Application - Date: 30 September 2019 at 15:25:35 BST] and their expertise is not required for future knowledge and greater intelligence is already being provided better than was ever before imagined and realised possible.
As a Tool, Absolutely AWEsome, as a Weapon, Formidably Rad and Fabulously Overwhelming.
cc .... the Unofficial Opposition and Stealthy Resistance ......via the courtesy of a toxic dump of a HyperRadioProACTive Pump on one of its websites/networks ....... https://dominiccummings.substack.com/people/36486208-dominic-cummings
What is that they say about Gift Horses ‽ . Yes, pretty please? Or No Thanks, we're still Lost Thinking about all of it?
Although given what you now know, why ever would you need to continue thinking about it other than to delay the inevitable as outlined to you, and your Command and Control Systems and Levers EMPowered and Wielded by A.N.Others Autonomous/Person or Persons Unknown. It smacks far too much of an absolute madness whenever responsible and accountable for delays to not be.
J'accuse.
This report is a (not terribly funny) joke.
The proposed principles are (as usual) vaguely expressed, and the section "Embedding our approach across government" just consists of proposals to 'examine', 'explore' and 'review' things.
"Embedding our approach with regulators" includes a proposal for "a voluntary forum comprising the CMA, FCA, ICO and Ofcom" (note voluntary) and a bit more 'exploring' and 'assessing'.
So, if anything other than a PR document, this is essentially a set of volatile aspirations with no concrete objectives or deliverables attached.
Government as usual.
The report doesn't generate any actual actionable items for me!
I can tell when a document has teeth, it means there's going to be work for me coming down the line that I have to be aware of/plan for.
As you rightly say, it's all waffle and I can't action waffle.
"... a set of volatile aspirations with no concrete objectives or deliverables attached."
And as such has our Beloved Leader( Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's) finger prints all over it.
The man is a lightweight buffoon who should not be in charge of a whelk stall if this sort of nonsense is supposed to chart the UK's path to IT supremacy.
Does it mean they'll scrap IR35, so that companies can have access to talent without a heaps of bureaucracy and a sword of HMRC hanging above their heads?
Are they going to finally tax the big players and make the avoidance schemes they use formally illegal, so there is a some sort of a level playing field?
government should “only regulate when absolutely necessary and do so in a proportionate way.”
What a novel idea. What an interesting approach. Glad to hear someone over there is thinking like this.
For anyone wanting a laugh at the tender embrace of government, California is paying people to go through their licensing as they have made selling pot unprofitable!-
https://www.expunct.com/business/congratulations-to-california-theyv-made-dealing-drugs-unprofitable/
Or maybe doing twice as much testing given that they can employ twice as many programmers and half as many form-fillers, telephone sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, and management consultants.
In case you have missed it; ISO9000 is a quality process. It doesn't guarantee that quality is achieved; it creates a set of processes and procedures that (if followed) are supposed to ensure constantly improving processes and better outcomes.
Hence if ISO9000 has been implemented and "It never found or fixed a single programming error." then it's not been implemented correctly and it's just been a box ticking exercise to say "we've got that" on part of management.
Yes, we "took back control" of:
1) Our borders - now we can't sent undocumented migrants back as we are no longer part of the Dublin Protocol (Well done France - sell them a boat and they are no longer your problem)
2) Our trade - we are just waving through imports and exports are (partially) nadgered (Anyone want some more Bi-Valve mollusks with their Chips?)
3) Our Laws - I think NI might have a word or two to say about that.
And we've sooooo reduced Red tape - ever seen a lorry manifest post Brexit - it's gone from 4 sheets to an inch thick wad!
Still, on the plus side, Truckers, Meat Packers, Brickies, Plumbers et al can now get decent rates so it's not all bad.... Oh, and we chuck out some Bankers too - Bonus.
You can trust Worzel Gummage to follow through on promises...
Wow, this is revolutionary thinking guys! Nobody's ever had that thought before! Is there any more evidence needed that we have a government of chancers with nothing to offer other than their own ambition for self advancement that they could actually offer up a new policy paper containing this wildly original idea? Do any of them even know what their own party's political philosophy is meant to be?
"cut down on cumbersome and confusing policy so businesses are freed to come up with new ideas, grow their firms and create new jobs and prosperity"
Shit, I guess I'll be able to free up a space in my diary, so that I can scrub out the "do red tape" entry for next Wednesday afternoon and pencil in "have a new idea" instead. Hope it's a good one.
Do any of them have any idea at all about how businesses actually work?
I remember being asked to go a task force to review a document from on high, as we were going to have to implement its vision.
One of our senior technical guys said "dont review it yet - let me go through it".
He forwarded his marked up comments (so we could see the deleted text). There were comments like
1) Too vague - how do we know if we have achieved this.
2) How is this different from what we are doing this today
3) Not measurable - we need to be able to measure things to see if they were successful (or not)
4) Impractical - there is no way we can do this in the next 2 years, the technology is too new.
5) If we do this, then people will work around it, and make it worse.
6) We can do this - the cost will be 6 person years of effort
7) Cant do in the time frame - we need to allow two years to implement this - and running both systems in parallel for 3 months.
8) You are missing the cost of testing/support - they need kit to test it, and the teams that will be needed.
9) Great I support this item, we should do it.
When the "deleted" text was removed a 50 page report became 2 sides.
Most of the project was binned, we did the few good things.
That always scares the shit out of me knowing they have a more relaxed definition of "absolutely necessary" than I do.
After all it's not "absolutely necessary" to protect lives when prepared to accept avoidable deaths.
It is a race to the bottom and Johnson is determined we will win it.
After all it's not "absolutely necessary" to protect lives when prepared to accept avoidable deaths.
This depends on your point of view. Statistics suggest that there have been more suicides a day from people who's lives have been destroyed due to the government restrictions driving their business or employer bankrupt than deaths due to Covid per day.
Which set of avoidable deaths were we referring to, the Covid ones or the death toll caused by the restrictions?
It is no doubt very easy for you to criticise, but your not making rather difficult decisions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
