Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

More Project Fear Old Boy. It will be just fine on 25th May. I've seen it at first hand in both large and small organisations. Sounds like a consultant is having a banquet at someone's expense! A single set of rules will apply to all EU member states which simplifies matters, for example. We can't uninvent digital rights and the predecessor Data Protection Directive was from 1995!

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You seem completely blind to the additional burden on small organisations.

As I said, I don't have a problem with the principle of the legislation, but the kack handed way it expects the law to be applied. This 'single set of rules' could be applied simply by setting out what is expected of us all rather than have everyone chasing their tails putting in place privacy notices, etc.

Even if that was justified, why has the ICO not made models available? Instead, everybody has to draft from scratch. Do the EU think we have nothing better to do with our time?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Your issue is with how the UK chooses to implement GDPR, not in the privacy and protection that GDPR provides consumers in this new digital age. Your GDPR Project Fear will not come to pass. If some organisations choose to over-engineer their data protection that's their look-out.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You seem to be underestimating the impact of the GDPR, and in fact I wonder if you are perhaps being a little complacent about it.

Small organisations did not need privacy agreements until this beast from the EU East came along. Once again, you have ignored the point that all organisations are having to put in place documentation which could have been clauses in the legislation instead.

It's a fine example of EU red tape and I sincerely hope that a future UK government unravels it. If we are to be successful outside the EU, we need less regulation and red tape, not more.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Where does it state that it needs to be written down? Organisations will take a proportionate approach. The UK has said that this is best practice legislation that will continue in the future. If a consultant has sold you an over-engineered solution and you chose to blame the EU for your buyer remorse there's little I can do.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not a good answer, Andrew. If it's not written down, how do you communicate the privacy policy to those whose personal data you are using? Thought transfer, perhaps?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not a wise use of finances one must say..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-2017-election

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

In this day and age when companies like Cambridge Analytica misuse personal data, it's only right that every company guarantees only to process the data for the purpose for which it was given. The size of the company is irrelevant, that should be a basic right.
If you're a small company, internal procedures can be straightforward and proportionate. A standard privacy policy will suffice.
A GDPR industry has crept up, a bit like the millennium bug industry in 1999 with many scare-mongers prophisising gloom and doom to line their pockets. Bad news GDPR consultants, I wasn't fooled in 1999 and I won't be fooled now.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Good grief, Andrew, that EU bubble you are in still shows no sign of bursting! You have completely ignored my point that organisations are having to set out in documentation stuff that should be laid down in law, avoiding massive duplication by every organisation - even tiddlers like residents' associations and clubs.

There is not a problem with protecting personal data. It is the problem of laying down laws in a scattergun manner which ties everyone in knots.

Maybe you should talk to one of the small organisations affected by this and see how happy they are with the GDPR - if they even understand it.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4...about-the-GDPR

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Nothing in your link supports your wilder assertions and no one would be more surprised than me if ever you did find such a link!! If anything, that link shows what a sensible piece of legislation it is as the excerpt below highlights. I know many small organisations who don't fear progress and know the benefits of having legislation appropriate for the 21st century without over-engineering a solution.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The UK data protection and rights as it stands is incredibly lax compared to other countries in Europe. I have German and Belgian colleagues and the hoops that need to be jumped through are much harder than here in the UK.

In Germany, any employee data collected has to have a reason as to why this data is collected and what it will be used for. For example, if you wanted to measure a call centre performance but not measure individual performance, very strict measures must be taken to anonymise the data so there is no way of tracking back how many calls each individual has taken. If individuals data is captured, the reasons for this data capture is run by the company works council (union) representatives before it can be done.

In Belgium, we had big issues as a number of my companies data servers are based in the US. Our US data servers had to be audited by the Belgian government before this was allowed under Belgian law.

Interestingly, for most personal data, the US isn't very stringent on data protection. The one case I know where there is an exception to this is hospital patient data. This is covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which is incredibly stringent. Offshoring US patient data is very, very difficult.

GPDR is trying to put a 'one size fits all' approach to data protection which is an admirable aim I suppose. I understand it can be a pain to small businesses to set up compliance and did have the thought if there could be exemptions but then realised what about small law firms, insurance brokers, financial advisors, etc.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Once again, you've missed my point completely. It is the unnecessary burden on small businesses I am talking about.

As for your link, it talks about businesses being advised to use simple language in their (quite unnecessary but legally required) documentation. Pity they couldn't have used simple language and straight forward means of implementing the requirements in the legislation.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Tories heading for 'record all-time low' in London local elections according to new analysis.

https://news.sky.com/story/tories-he...tions-11297224

https://www.ft.com/content/f4cc8a98-...a-7e7563b0b0f4

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

It's necessary and Jon has explained to you why this is so. We're now in the 21st century, not the 19th. Even the week's revelations about Cambridge Analytica should have made you consider your posts more laterally as they could be classified as a small organisation.
Stating on your website in plain language why you are collecting information and the purpose for what it will be used for is not a burden, it's common sense and people are entitled to dealing with organisations that operate in this way. Your suggested approach of telling people that your data is being collected and they should refer to sub-section 7.1.2 of a particular regulation is unfair to most people who are not legally-trained.
Once again, you start off with the the objective of trying to criticise the EU and trying to get the facts to fit your thesis. Like a square peg in a round hole, they don't.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

CA only deals with commercial organisations and political organisations so your reference to them is spurious as they do not have dealings with the public.