Britain outside the EU

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Chris

Meanwhile, the UK is now free to reform its hopelessly bureaucratic data protection laws. I for one won’t miss the cookie pop-up tsunami, foisted on me by Brussels for no good reason.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58340333

Even if the rules say they're no longer required, doesn't mean for global sites you won't still see them here.

If they're required in the EU but not in the UK, will a company produce a UK specific site, or just keep it in for the UK as a simple way to comply for both?

I know. But that will be down to poor web design. The cookie control pop-up hinders user engagement with any website, and worse, it does so on the all-important first visit, when first impressions count. Once a few sites ditch it, it will leave the rest looking clunky. Even a few extra seconds wait time is an eternity on the web. There’s no technical reason why site operators can’t remove the UK from whichever geoblocking system they use to prevent EU users from seeing the website without first acknowledging the cookie control pop-up. After the law changes, and it gets inevitable publicity in UK media, I think lots of places will ditch it.

On a related issue, by the way, the real benefits of these reforms aren’t in the removal of cookie pup-ups, they are in relaxing the absurd administrative burden currently put upon even small charities and community groups who already barely have the resources to manage simple members/supporters lists and have to have reams of policies just to ensure such things aren’t shared by the wrong email address or even stored on the wrong cloud service, and to inform the data commissioner when even an extremely trivial data ‘breach’ occurs.

It has been rather annoying sitting in more than one context and witnessing the chaos it has caused, especially in situations where things are being run by volunteers. I won’t be sorry to see the back of as much of that as possible.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Even if the rules say they're no longer required, doesn't mean for global sites you won't still see them here.

If they're required in the EU but not in the UK, will a company produce a UK specific site, or just keep it in for the UK as a simple way to comply for both?

Well, if some EU rules still apply to NI, will websites aimed at all of the UK still have to comply with EU regulations?

[1andrew1]

Looks like the suggestion of changes to data protection legislation aren't sitting well with some areas of business. Not sure how this might impact are data equivalence deal with the EU.

Adam Rose, data protection partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: “Today’s announcements put the UK on a collision path with the EU, but also more widely with civil society organisations, with the likelihood of serious domestic data litigation in the future.”

William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, added: “We will examine carefully any proposals for divergence from GDPR or other data protection or handling legislation. Firms need concrete assurances from government that these would not put our adequacy relationship with the EU at risk.”

Some also argue that the government’s announcement on cookie pop-ups masks more substantial changes that could conflict with the EU’s general data protection regulation (GDPR).

Lilian Edwards, law professor at Newcastle University and an expert in internet law, said Dowden’s attack on cookie notices “smacks of being a smokescreen” that disguised a broader weakening of good data protection practices.

“This sort of pro-Brexit talk-up is likely to achieve almost nothing — as any firm contracting with the EU and many other countries will in any case have to stick to GDPR standards — and merely jeopardise our fragile and crucial adequacy agreement,” she added.

https://www.ft.com/content/f344f7ea-...3-26b73c5804da

Those with a vested interest in aligning with the EU will continue to fight a rearguard action against any expression of British sovereignty. In particular we can expect large companies that can absorb bureaucracy relatively better than small ones to fight to preserve this advantage.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Even if the rules say they're no longer required, doesn't mean for global sites you won't still see them here.

If they're required in the EU but not in the UK, will a company produce a UK specific site, or just keep it in for the UK as a simple way to comply for both?

Cannot the web server display the GDPR stuff upon determination of the requstor’s location?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Cannot the web server display the GDPR stuff upon determination of the requstor’s location?

If the site developers want to do that yes, but it all depends if it's worth them changing it.

[Sephiroth]

It’s the answer to EU objections.

[Sephiroth]

Sorry not in a position to post a link to today’s Torygraph:

EU warns it could stop sharing terror data
Brussels yesterday warned it could stop sharing data on criminals and suspected terrorists with Britain and tear up a Brexit data transfer deal if the UK diverges too far from EU laws. ….

I’ve been criticised for calling them the enemy but what else can be reasonably by said about that regime? All because the Guvmin wants to stop the Cookie nags.

Don’t bend over, Boris and do spit on them.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sorry not in a position to post a link to today’s Torygraph:



I’ve been criticised for calling them the enemy but what else can be reasonably by said about that regime? All because the Guvmin wants to stop the Cookie nags.

Don’t bend over, Boris and do spit on them.

As with most things Brexit, the government is well within its rights to make changes to our rules. That doesn't mean that other countries or organisations won't also make changes to their approach after that.

Why would any country in the EU transfer data to a 3rd party country where they don't have an agreement that matches their internal rules as to how that data will be protected?

The EU made clear that their adequacy decision would be revisited if divergence happened, and that is based on their member states own views.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_21_3183

Both adequacy decisions include strong safeguards in case of future divergence such as a ‘sunset clause', which limits the duration of adequacy to four years.

At the same time, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by the Parliament, the Members States and the European Data Protection Board, in particular on the possibility of future divergence from our standards in the UK's privacy framework.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sorry not in a position to post a link to today’s Torygraph:

I’ve been criticised for calling them the enemy but what else can be reasonably by said about that regime? All because the Guvmin wants to stop the Cookie nags.

Don’t bend over, Boris and do spit on them.

The Taliban are the enemy. Maybe frenemies is the word you're after to describe countries like the US, Japan, France etc.

Calling the EU an enemy is a bit OTT, but their actions suggest they now see us as a strategic rival rather than as an ally and we should view them likewise.

International treaties are generally based on mutual recognition of standards, not on alignment, and while the data treaty between the UK and EU does indeed use the language of recognition (“adequacy” in this case) the EU’s warnings in this case demonstrate that what they really want is alignment, or as near to it as possible.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the UK’s new data regime would materially threaten the personal details of EU citizens (as it would also do the same to UK citizens), though as all EU systems are an excessively bureaucratic fudge designed to mollify competing interests across member states, it is odds-on that the UK’s new regime could be markedly more efficient - and that’s what the EU is actually worried about. They will hide behind data security concerns but in fact, what they fear is the freedom we now have to out-compete them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

As with most things Brexit, the government is well within its rights to make changes to our rules. That doesn't mean that other countries or organisations won't also make changes to their approach after that.

Why would any country in the EU transfer data to a 3rd party country where they don't have an agreement that matches their internal rules as to how that data will be protected?

The EU made clear that their adequacy decision would be revisited if divergence happened, and that is based on their member states own views.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_21_3183

Ben - this is terrorist and criminals dat we are talking about. Cookies and other GDPR Stuff ha nothing to do with it. They are bad.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ben - this is terrorist and criminals dat we are talking about. Cookies and other GDPR Stuff ha nothing to do with it. They are bad.

Fair point, though looks like there are still clauses around changes in that too

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/defa..._agreement.pdf

Article 17
Each Party shall notify the other Party in writing of any changes in its laws, rules and regulations that could affect the protection of classified information referred to in this Agreement.

[Sephiroth]

Ben, not that I know about those details, but I can’t imagine either side would wish to compromise classified information.