Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
I think you'll find that you've failed in convincing anyone of your unusual views on this subject. Hugh, tweetiepooh, Carth, jonbxx have all challenged your interpretation. I'm not sure what you mean by paperwork, I suspect you have been sold a lemon by a consultant.
Hugh gave a great summary, it really isn't as hard as you make it out to be, and if anyone hands over their personal data they're entitled to know the purpose that it will be used for in plain English. This is pretty straightforward stuff, Old Boy.
It sounds as if you have a 20th century view on the value of personal data and only see the costs and not the benefits in keeping it secure and demonstrating this value to potential clients. That's an uncommercial and outdated approach to 21st century business challenges.
|
Once again, you are failing to grasp the point I am making. Of course personal data should be protected. Where have I said it shouldn't be? What I said was that the obligations of organisations should be set out in law, and not repeated in documentation issued by every organisation. That is efficient and effective and seems to work perfectly well in other areas of law.
By the way, a privacy notice is paperwork, Andrew, as is the millions of letters or emails sent to all service users to say what good, responsible people we are in getting your consent, despite the fact that you already knew why we were collecting your name and address in the first place.
Not every organisation is another Facebook or Cambridge Analytica. Talk about sledgehammers and nuts!