Dutch public sector gets green light to use Google Workspace A year after the Dutch data protector said there were too many "legal obstacles" for its civil servants to use Google Workspace, a re-worked agreement will permit the public sector to fire up the productivity suite. Google HQ in the netherlands, in Amsterdam's Claude Debussylaan in the CBD Google's Netherlands HQ, in …
Yep, following previous and typically Dutch standard operating procedure: discount price hunting, least effort solution, and no regard for consequences (for others). Until stuff goes catastrophically wrong, followed by an "independent investigation", a "shrug" conclusion, and "it wasn't me" and "doesn't affect me so nothing wrong" living on. Been there, done that...
Well, it’s hardly their fault, is it? The rules on privacy and tech giants etc are set by the EU Commission. National governments have no more power in this than a bunch of blokes chatting down the pub. As long as the Commission decide their rules are adhered to, intervention by governments would be not just illegal, but actually a *criminal* matter against the Dutch MPs involved. Sedition isn’t just a fancy word. Ask Carlos Puigdemont.
World’s smallest violin.
You supported this system when they handed down decisions you approved of. You can hardly complain when the decisions go the other way.
In this specific thing, that statement was exactly correct. As *you* know no doubt too.
While it is correct that the enforcement is derogated to “National Data Protection authorities”, these are *appointees*. They are specifically designed by law to be independent of national government. And the only law they answer to is EU law. The ultimate arbiter is the ECJ.
An MP who attempted to interfere with that process, even if they ran on a public platform and had 100% approval to do so, can and *would* be extradited to stand criminal trial.
You really have no idea what you are supporting, do you?
While it is correct that the enforcement is derogated to “National Data Protection authorities”, these are *appointees*. They are specifically designed by law to be independent of national government. And the only law they answer to is EU law. The ultimate arbiter is the ECJ.
Er, what?
You really have no idea what you are supporting, do you?
You really have no idea what you're against, do you?
Which bit do you disagree with?
That the National Data Protection agency is a quango, not under governmental control?
What happens, in your view, if an MP supervenes?
What law do *you* think they apply?
Which court do you think has primacy?
Unless Sneerclub writes its position down, it’s difficult for me to provide link explaining why what you think you’ve been told doesn’t match the legal reality.
That the National Data Protection agency is a quango, not under governmental control?
In the UK's case, both pre and post Brexit, it reports to parliament and is sponsored by the DCMS.
What happens, in your view, if an MP supervenes?
Intervenes in a case? They're not supposed to, because the data regulator is supposed to be independent.
What law do *you* think they apply?
National law. Even GDPR allows for differences between member states. You may find this guide helpful when comparing differences.
Which court do you think has primacy?
National courts, although a national court can refer to the ECJ to obtain its opinion.
Some are, some aren’t. In Germany, it does *not* report to Parliament. It’s an “independent federal agency”. The Commissioner is appointed by Parliament, and gets its budget from national, but is “under no external supervision”. Once appointed, Parliament can’t remove or censure. It’s a judicial system, not a civil service department. You can argue whether that’s good or bad, but they *dont* report to Parliament, neither can they be dismissed nor censured in any way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Commissioner_for_Data_Protection_and_Freedom_of_Information
“Intervenes in a case….they’re not supposed to”. Yes, you do agree with me. So what happens when people do what “they’re not supposed to”? They get prosecuted for breaking the law. My original statement and point was: this isn’t the *Dutch governments fault*. As an MP they can’t just randomly decide “we shouldn’t do X because it contravenes GDPR”, if an independent body has explicitly said “no it does not contravene GDPR”. They would be doing exactly what you said they are not supposed to. They would be contradicting a judicial system. The system has cut the legs out from under them.
“They apply national law”. No, that’s not correct. It’s so much more complicated than your list. That’s one of the problems. They now have to account for what is done cross-border, and also apply other countries laws inside their own borders. It’s madness.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/cjeu-gdpr-consumer-litigation/
But anyway, by the end of this year all the GDPR is being changed to remove the derogations, and national entities won’t
National courts do *not* have primacy. Not only the national court can apply to the ECJ, but also the losing party to any case, which happens almost every major case. ECJ has heard well over 100 cases.There have only *been* 1400 cases. 10% of all cases go to ECJ. So whatever you think in theory, the practice is different. Hint: where was Schrems II adjudicated?
Some are, some aren’t. In Germany, it does *not* report to Parliament.
So the EU allows for national variations, then.
“Intervenes in a case….they’re not supposed to”. Yes, you do agree with me.
Why should MPs be able to intervene in an investigation run by an independent data protection agency? Would you like MPs to intervene in court cases too?
They now have to account for what is done cross-border, and also apply other countries laws inside their own borders.
The source you linked to doesn't seem to have anything to do with that assertion.
Hint: where was Schrems II adjudicated?
The Irish DPC asked the Irish High Court to refer the case to the ECJ because it required a ruling on EU Standard Contractual Clauses that are used to send data to the US. It would not have made sense for the Irish High Court to make a ruling just for Ireland.
Indeed by definition MPs shouldn’t intervene in an investigation run by an independent agency. Where you and I differ, is whether such an *independent* agency should exist in the first place. And this is nothing to do with Data Protection.
The way we (always have) done things in the UK is that we have a democratically elected Parliament, who can make what laws they damn well please until removed from power by the electorate. The Civil Service have traditionally no independence at all. By design, because we deeply distrust and despise non-elected people with such authority, and with good reason because all such states ruled by “experts” have proven to be quite savage dictatorships within very short space of time. Plus we have an *independent judiciary*. That is our separation of powers. There is simply no such thing as a non-elected entity with rulemaking authority that is not the judiciary. That’s how we do it. If you don’t like it, then frankly go f* off to a Napoleonic code country where they choose to do things differently, and also BTW have politically appointed judiciary
. In the past two decades there has unfortunately been a creeping “independent quango” cancer in the UK affecting many areas. Deeply dangerous. Not imposed by the EU, but also not entirely unrelated to the mindset with Tony Blair and his cronies.
So, no, I don’t think MPs should “intervene”, because I think these issues should simply be decided by elected representatives in Parliamentary Committee. The way our unwritten Constitution has always done it.
Oh and “Hint: where was Schrems II adjudicated?”
I wasn’t asking you to parrot the excuse given as to why the supra-national body took the decision, rather than the national one. I’m simply pointing out that in any case where there is real doubt or political decision to be taken, the decision *is* taken by the supra-national body.
National body is basically the bored night-sergeant at the front desk checking in the drunks on Friday night. It’s not that his superior overrules him, it’s that a decent rank-and-file knows when to call his boss in.
Note the wording. Not the "privacy of our customers" - but "the privacy of our customer's data". Being Google, they don't care about people's privacy. But they do care about the privacy of the data they collect for their own unfettered use - Google is very careful nobody else can access those data but Google...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
