Neat
Can I apply this approach to the definition of "taxable income" as well?
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 …
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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