No need to comply with data laws if it's too difficult - EU ministers
Organisations will not have to abide by data protection laws if it would be too difficult, time-consuming and use up too many important resources to check whether information they hold is personally identifiable, the EU's Council of Ministers has proposed. The Council has outlined some revisions (112-page/575KB PDF) to the …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Neat
Can I apply this approach to the definition of "taxable income" as well?
Incitement
Is this an incitement to break/disregard the law? Isn't that illegal?
Re: Incitement
"Is this an incitement to break/disregard the law? Isn't that illegal?"
Only when you do it. As far as our lords and masters are concerned, the law is only there to keep the pond life in its place. They have to pretend it applies to them too, but we all know it doesn't. (Jimmy Carr... Lord Ashcroft... Vodafone...)
Something's going on here
Relaxing of data laws
Proposal of snooping laws
Proposal of web filtering
let alone all the ACTA etc malarky
so they can stop me using the internet, snoop on anything, sell that data to anyone because it's too difficult not too
Sorry, can't stop, I'm still trying to get my website compliant to the cookie law. Are we being ruled by headless chickens?
"Are we being ruled by headless chickens?"
Of course not. 'Vultures' is a more apt description.
Re: "Are we being ruled by headless chickens?"
Nah Vultures tend to have the common decency to wait until you're daed, or at least most way there. I'd say they're more like Jackels.
Re: "Are we being ruled by headless chickens?"
"I'd say they're more like Jackels."
Bigger teeth, and they make a very unpleasant noise. Hyenas, maybe.
Re: I'm still trying to get my website compliant to the cookie law.
Relaxing enforcement of personal data laws won't apply to cookies as they don't contain personal data. So the personal data laws will continue to be strictly enforced when applied to cookies.
I hope that's clear.
Re: "Are we being ruled by headless chickens?"
Chickens, Vultures, Jackals and Hyenas?
no, not even Hyenas deserve their characters darkened by association with this lot
if you're looking for a more apposite zoomorphism, try Hagfish, or Leech, or Tapeworm..
Google and Wireless Sniffing
As I read this, it would also let Google off the hook for collecting wi-fi data since it would be overly difficult to analyse all data to see if it contained personally identifing information and by not security the access point, it could be argued that the user is giving implied consent to it being read by others?
what a wicked web we weave...
I sympathise with the idea, I am sure they mean well. The problem is any reasonable common-sense approach to this subject will always be subverted by those who given an inch will take a mile. And that applies to both sides: corporations who will exploit any loophole, or use slippery boiler-plate T&Cs to abuse privacy; but just as damaging are the well-meaning obsessives with tin-foil hats.
Note the UK position
"Oh it's too difficult to get people to consent"
But not too difficult to collect all comms data about every phone call, text message, IM, email and web site visited.
I smell the rank odour of the UK Home Office.
HIT THE BRAKES!!!
OK, we have a serious hollowing out of the laws here.
Let's not forget that the David in this equation is the end user, who does not have the gazillions to take the abusers to court. Especially US companies have already shown they are inclined to simply *ignore* applicable laws until they get caught out, at which point they say "oops, sorry" in a sufficiently cringy way to get off with a slap on the wrist (aka a fine they can pay of of petty cash) and then go on as before with just enough change to prevent them from being accused of simply repeating the offense. Or, put another way, they willingly and knowingly break the law and write off the fines as a (minute) cost of doing business. Pretty much like Wall Street, but without the bailout extras.
What's more, they have managed to change the fines around as well. Infringements used to be per instance (per person), because the harm done to the individual is exactly the same if one person is harmed or ten thousand. Now it's all about percentages (also in compliance). The right attitude should be: if you cannot make a compliant service, don't bring it online. Somehow they got away with this.
With the above in mind I would very seriously advise to protest in the strongest possible way that no weakening is allowed, but the opposite. It would be interesting to actually see any of those companies properly comply, and until that time there should not be weakening, but increased scrutiny, and finally some DECENT fines. Because without the punishment those companies will not change - they are making a fortune on the back of sly escape routes.
No way. Hell no.
misleading interpretation
I think this article is misleading.
"If identification requires a disproportionate amount of time, effort or material resources the natural living person shall not be considered identifiable."
this is referring to whether the individual is easily identifiable from the information - not the data classification.
Re: misleading interpretation
You classify the information and into datasets run SQL queries, it's marketing's bread and butter. If the effort is to identify someone is disproportionate then so is the effort to target ads at them in the first place.
So what's the point of having the law if companies can simply side-step it by saying it's too difficult to comply with?
Implied consent?
That sounds like the defense from the bloke that had his way with a passed out lady friend.
"She was in my car, officer!" "Why else would she be going out with me except to shag?"
Pricks.
No surprises here
The whole of the EU data protection effort over the past decade results in a zilion pages of documents with a semantic value of 0.
These people would win the world bollocks talking championship hands down.
governments have discovered that it's...
much easier to have the Corporations, that pay them their retirement packages, collect everyones data than to do it themselves. governments then just tell (ask, I suspect is more accurate) said Corporations for the data they have on an individual to find out who the noisey dissenters are.
government not capitalised to indicate diminished importance
This topic is closed for new posts.
