back to article Half of EU members sidle up to EC: About the data-sharing rules. C'mon. Chill out

Ministers from half of the European Union's 28 member states have signed a letter asking the EU Commission to drop its “barriers to the free flow of data”. The letter was sent to the EU's digitally focused folk ahead of Wednesday, when the commission will publish the findings of its inquiry into online platforms (“search …

  1. M7S

    Bloody "L"

    I'm surprised and a tad disappointed at some of the countries on that list. The ones beginning with L, for example, used to be particularly sensitive about things like personal information. Admittedly one of them because of its value as a tax haven, but the other two for significant socio-historical reasons, which I wish our governments would take heed of.

  2. Len
    Holmes

    Against geo blocking?

    Is this against data protection? I don't see much that would point in that direction.

    I would rather say this is a step towards more of a single market for services (which has been lagging behind the single market for goods) and, ultimately, against geo blocking within the single market.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More barriers please

    Stop the bandits making off with my private information, using their "innovative business models".

    1. Martin Gregorie

      Re: More barriers please

      Stop the bandits making off with my private information, using their "innovative business models".

      Exactly so. Try this on for size:

      • You (this means governments, quangos, government agencies, businesses and non-proifits) can only retain information specific to an individual or that identifies an individual if all copies of it are securely encrypted wherever it is stored or in transit within your organisation.
      • You will ensure that this information is only available to members of your organisation with a demonstrated task-related need to access it.
      • You may not pass this information to a third party without the explicit permission of the individual it describes. The list of these authorisations must be available to the individual.
      • You may not pass this information to a third party who cannot meet the safeguards given above and it must be securely encrypted during any such authorised transfer.

      I think that about covers it. I don't think that this set of rules can harm any legitimate business since it is really just a description of best privacy practise. Admittedly it would be bad news to the Googles and FBs of this world, but who cares: you can make a good case that the way they (mis)use personal data is indistinguishable from data theft.

      If they want to stay in business they can always move to a subscription model: I'd be willing to pay for use of Google Earth and possibly for their search engine (since its behind IXquick) and YouTube but nothing else they, FB and friends do has the slightest value to me.

    2. Pseu Donyme

      Re: More barriers please

      I quite agree, although instead of mere barriers I would insist on insurmountable bulwarks against any commercial use of personal information* without freely given, informed consent, revocable at any time; business models must be compatible with data protection (i.e. privacy), not the other way around.

      * any data about a natural person, unless it is strictly impossible ever, under any circumstances for the holder of the data or a third party to identify the person to whom the data is related

      1. sysconfig

        Re: More barriers please

        business models must be compatible with data protection (i.e. privacy), not the other way around

        This, dear sir, is spot on, and sums up in one sentence so many things that are wrong with business and politics these days. Have an upvote.

  4. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    Colour me cynical

    But the UKs inclusion (not quite sure why "Great Britain" was mentioned, since that's a geographical term, not a political one) is probably part of la May and the Brexiteers greatest hit : "Ditch the Red Tape ("White" house mix)", rather than the result of a carefully considered evaluation of all the facts.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,.... Baroness Neville Rolfe

    Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Great Britain, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden... did not write a letter. These things are usually done by a single lobbyist who then farms it around for signatures.

    So in Britains case they got the 'Baroness for Life' Neville Rolfe (think 10 years in jail for copyright infringement Baroness, the ex Tescos exec ), to sign the letter.

    Does she speak on behalf of Britain? No. Does she speak on behalf of the government? No, she's bottom tier government, she sounds like she's trying to take Ed Vaizey MP's role. It's his portfolio, not hers. Doing that "pretending to be the boss as a means to become the boss" trick, perhaps*.

    Data Retention Directive, was pushed through by Tony Blair when the UK had the EU Presidency. It's been ruled illegal in Germany, the EU legal opinion is probably correct. You can't bulk spy on innocent people on the assumption they will be criminals in future. That was very much a Tony Blair (in his Bush persona) thing.

    I don't see how requiring companies track their users as "presumptive future criminals", is a digital markets issue at all. It's a fundamental rights issue, way above the micro business regulation of the internet. They are required to obey the fundamental rights, they don't get to waive them away as part of minor regulations.

    * By signing this letter, the reply, and the discussion around it goes to her, instead of Ed Vaizey, and so she usurps the Communications role and her opinion is heard over Vaizeys as though its her role.

  6. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "the right balance between digital products and services and the fundamental rights of data subjects"

    I assume the balance intended is 1-nil to the products and services.

  7. Sparks

    Interesting that the Irish signatory has been a junior Minister less than a week...

  8. Mk4

    The letter argues for the full implementation of the GDPR

    Currently the differences between laws in EU member states mean thought has to be put into what needs to be done in different EU countries. With GDPR there is going to be greater parity between states, yes - I know it's not goint to exactly the same everywhere but a huge improvement on today when you, for example, compare Ireland and the UK. Ever had a chat with LinkedIn (located in Ireland) about your personal data expecting the same data protection rights as we have in the UK? I have and they don't exist (respectively).

    If you want to have data moving freely between corporations in the EU then common rules seems to be a good idea. The GDPR will also make Europe the place to put your data if you want more than hollow words protecting your rights to this (your) data. Creating a strong regulatory framework for personal data is much the same as having strong regulations for accountancy and housing property ownership. Trustworthy regimes promote commercial activity. This will promote the growth of the digital economy in the EU, not hinder it.

    BTW - Safe Harbour was not the predecessor of the GDPR. Directive EC/95/46 was. Enacted as, for example, the Data Protection Act in UK, Wet Bescherming Persongegevens (WBP) in NL and the "Pointless Piece of Paper" (PPP) in Ireland. Safe harbour was a self-certification scheme run by the US Department of Commerce so that US entities could pretend to provide the same level of personal data protection as we have in the EU. It was, frankly, bollocks from day one and the Snowdon revelations had nothing to do with that. Killing it has been a step forward.

  9. dan1980

    Oh, it's only 'data', is it?

    Ahhh, the "free flow of data".

    How innocent a term: 'data'. But let's be 100% clear about what is being affected: personal information.

    There are no barriers for one company sharing it's internal data with another - only when the data relates to an individual.

    So let's translate the plea: "remove and weaken the laws protecting privacy for individuals so that corporations can make more money marketing to and on-selling that information".

    Fixed, &c.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like