Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to depart from GDPR

lawgazette.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 659 posts

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#261

Post by propertymagnate »

7_my_mind wrote: post #230
shubb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some theories in the UK that are close to conspiracy theory. Many leading brexit proponents are rich people who made their money from the collapse of the soviet union and have assets largely outside the UK. One conspiracy theory is that they are attempting to crash the UK economy in order to buy the dip, make money from shorts and the sell off of state assets. Another conspiracy theory is that brexit has an…

There was no grand conspiracy and no master architects of chaos. It was simply a meme that got out of hand. It started out as a sentiment, a set of ideas that I would call liberal chauvinism. Then anti-immigration got on board. Then the Tories tried to win the anti-immigration folk back, but instead got swallowed by the BREXIT movement, along with a big chunk of Labour.

This seems pretty much it to me.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#262

Post by aembleton »

hnlmorg wrote: post #202
Hitton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was fitting, considering how UK joined the EU in the first place (look up Maastricht Treaty if you don't remember it).

No it's not fitting. You don't make trillion pound economic, social and political decisions based on the whim of a popular vote. At least not unless you have powerful allies in the media and a personal interest to gain. Which is the real crux of the referendum was about. It was never about us regular folk and entirely about the self interests of those in charge. We were just pawns in a much larger game of power. Let'…

All of the parties apart from the SNP promised a referendum in their manifesto. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats had it in theirs for about a decade.

The referendum was advisory, so it would have been possible for parliament to vote not to enact article 50. But parliament voted for it.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#263

Post by Nursie »

callamdelaney wrote: post #256
dash2 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a stacked decision. There's no way to specify exactly what each of two options will entail. (If you don't believe me, take a look at a California ballot pamphlet.) Of course Leave was gonna be more uncertain - but normally such uncertainty plays against you in referendums, where the status quo tends to win. If Remain didn't pin Leave down, then that's the fault of their campaigning, not the setup…

Playing on this uncertainty was a conscious decision by the pro remain Conservative government of the time. People would ask 'what will happen after we vote brexit?' the natural reply: 'nobody knows' - well why not? It was clearly reckless to hold a vote on something without a plan on how it was actually to be implemented or even what it might look like; and there were calls for the government to do some investigatio…

Yes that was more or less an explicit choice from Cameron IIRC - if we come up with a plan for what happens afterwards, that plan may reassure people that Brexit can work out OK, and play to the other side.

So no plan. Genius.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#264

Post by hnedeotes »

dash2 wrote: post #228
hnedeotes wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, unless I'm missing something, they're annoying because they're not that well implemented, maybe even on purpose? Sites where I have granted access keep asking me to re-grant no matter what. Sites where I have denied do the same (although here I would expect it, not that I agree, since I already clicked "no"). And actually it's cool, sometimes you go to some docs and there's 33 "essential" cookies…

I think you're absolutely right. But I also think it was predictable. If we trusted the companies to do the right thing, we could have done that without GDPR. So OK, they live off advertising, they want to track, so now they just use dark patterns. What's next? Yet more regulations about exactly how to show this fundamentally annoying consent question? I just want to browse the internet!!! Sometimes people talk about…

But that forces you to install a plugin that you would need to review the code for which can even be more harmful than tracking - not saying it is, but if ToS are cryptic for a common person, reading the source code of a plugin more so (given that browsers don't offer a way to block what kind of information they provide - with exception of location - which should be something essential, but then perhaps google would stop developing chrome which in terms of functionality/performance has done great for pushing other things).

For me this is a question of privacy, I'm ok with ads, but you don't need this to show me ads. It's not a problem that FB has a face recognition pipeline capable of linking me to any image posted in their platform and that a state sponsored agency could use, and track me throughout internet while logging me around, and which emails I open, and my location individually, and then my chats and probably WhatsApp too now, and instagram likes.

The problem is when you connect all these systems, with everything else and suddenly you can derive almost a 24/7 coverage of the life of an individual. If you and another person meet and both are carrying their phones then it's easy to sort of connect the remaining dots, specially in light of all other data points captured, security surveillance (public and covert), etc. And this is not problematic by itself, it's problematic when it becomes a system that is available to be used by whatever powers that sit in a position to use them. Today it might not be nefarious but you don't know if tomorrow is the same, but once there it might be difficult to revert the situation.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#265

Post by thinkingemote »

gmac wrote: post #207
callamdelaney wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 24 and voted for brexit. In fact I campaigned for it and would do so again. It's really a very poor form to resort to the "dumb old racists voted for brexit hurr".

OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to. The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff. Arguments in favour of Brexit thus tend to boil down to immigration and 'sovereignty'. The…

Most of the EU countries have worrying powerful and popular nationalist political parties which are on the rise.

The UK is actually the exception to the growing hate and nationalism in Europe!

The benefit of UK in Europe was that it helped curtail the exscesses of the continent. I worry for the EU now as it seems more toxic after Brexit than before.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#266

Post by dane-pgp »

gmac wrote: post #241
callamdelaney wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the referendum was stacked against leave in every conceivable way. For example, the remain campaign had £6m more to work with. On top of this the government spent £9m on pro remain leaflets and social media advertising. Add onto this the fact that the government wheeled out every 'expert' it could find to constantly cry about how bad brexit would be - most of them were lying (Mark Carney, Georg…

I already wrote a lengthy reply to one of your other comments. I don't have the time or energy to write a detailed rebuttal to this one, and I'm beginning to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith. But on your WW2 point, I did think about it for a minute. Britain fought WW2 for 6 years, 1939 – 1945. Brexit has no known endpoint. Imagine that even 10% of the trade impacts we've seen since the end of the transitio…

It's also worth considering that the UK economy in 2021 is larger than it was during WW2, so a small percentage impact in the present day would be a bigger absolute value than the same percentage applied to the past economy.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#267

Post by robin_reala »

Nursie wrote: post #239
robin_reala wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ken Clarke isn’t going anywhere.

You know he's retired, right? Interesting guy, my opinion of him changed (for the better) when I found out he presented a regular Jazz show on the radio.

Wow, OK, I’ve been out of the UK for too long.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#268

Post by arethuza »

callamdelaney wrote: post #256
dash2 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a stacked decision. There's no way to specify exactly what each of two options will entail. (If you don't believe me, take a look at a California ballot pamphlet.) Of course Leave was gonna be more uncertain - but normally such uncertainty plays against you in referendums, where the status quo tends to win. If Remain didn't pin Leave down, then that's the fault of their campaigning, not the setup…

Playing on this uncertainty was a conscious decision by the pro remain Conservative government of the time. People would ask 'what will happen after we vote brexit?' the natural reply: 'nobody knows' - well why not? It was clearly reckless to hold a vote on something without a plan on how it was actually to be implemented or even what it might look like; and there were calls for the government to do some investigatio…

Even Dominic Cummings said at one point there was a strong case for a second referendum to decide what form Brexit should take (note NOT a re-run of the first referendum).

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#269

Post by marcus_holmes »

dash2 wrote: post #233
chocmilk wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having now lived in the UK and Netherlands for over 10 years, I feel this would never happen here. It wouldn't happen in the UK because jaywalking is not a crime in UK. Quiet Australians accept authority moreso than UK folk.

> Quiet Australians accept authority moreso than UK folk. This is so far from my stereotype of Aussies that I feel sure it must be a troll, designed to bring out a legion of shirtless, shrimp-barbecuing cobbers, turning the air blue with their feelings about authority.

Dual-national UK/Aussie here (ethnically a "Pom" then).

It's definitely true. Australia loves the smack of firm government and is quietly very, very authoritarian.

There's an Aussie term "Wowsers" [0] which is fascinating, as there is no British equivalent term. It often feels like the Wowsers and the Larrikins [1] are fighting an endless battle for Australia's soul. The Wowsers always win.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#270

Post by gmac »

dash2 wrote: post #258
gmac wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to. The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff. Arguments in favour of Brexit thus tend to boil down to immigration and 'sovereignty'. The…

> OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to. That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything , there must be some reasons for it. You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Th…

> That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it.

Sure, and I think the most palatable conclusion is that a very large number of people are not well informed. If you look at UK news outlets — what they choose to report, how they choose to report it, and the interests of the people who own them — this doesn't stretch credibility very much.

> Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing?

Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts".

> it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies

The big tech companies are too large and too powerful to be safe for democracy (or indeed for healthy forms of capitalism involving genuine competition). I would like to see more action taken against them everywhere. The EU is large enough to stand up to large corporations of this sort. The UK outside the EU is not.

Post reply on HN