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

641–650 of 659 posts

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#641

Post by Nextgrid »

XCSme wrote: post #639
Nextgrid wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook's tracking consent flows do not comply with the GDPR. All the mobile apps that implement tracking & analytics SDK do not comply unless they request explicit consent. You can start there. The GDPR's spirit is great but the entities tasked with enforcing it are absolutely incompetent.

The thing about enforcing the law is that it's still just politics. You can't suddenly start fining everyone without expecting a backlash. A law only works well when most people are respecting it, not when most people are breaking it.

Why will there be a backlash? Unlike some other laws where the general public typically contains both winners and losers, when it comes to the GDPR I can't see why the general public would be against it - the law doesn't restrict anything per-se, it just requires data processing to be made transparent to the user and allow them to decline.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#642

Post by killtimeatwork »

himinlomax wrote: post #442
killtimeatwork wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtue of having clearer, cleaner and simpler processes. We are a large bank, most of our processes are decades old and are an impossible mess. For reference, we have a total of around 5000 systems running in the bank... Till GDPR and also some post-2008 regulation, I guess the strategy was to mostly accept the mess we're in (it's basically an absolutely extreme version of technical and organizational debt), with s…

There's no reason for a bank to be particularly impacted by GDPR. That makes no sense.

The reasons are:

1. Business and IT in big banks are both extremely complex. Business just because of regulations making everything difficult and because the business people have had centuries of time to come up with complicated schemes on how to make money and/or serve customers in a competitive way. IT because paying off tech debt is not something that banks do for the most part.

2. IT in banks is often old and undocumented, making deep modifications very hard and risky.

3. Big banks are parts of the country's (or, in case of biggest banks, world's) critical infrastructure. Hence, they're REALLY risk averse. I.e. if Google Ad words goes down, the the only impact is that people's browsers around the world start running faster without all the ads... If the bank's transactional system goes down (or worse, transfers money where it shouldn't go), then the whole social order is at risk.

There are other industries that are similar - are also old, complex and critical - like for example the utilities, but unlike banks they don't make money off of people's private data like the banks do, so they don't transfer customer's details back and forth between their systems - so the GDPR impact is much lesser.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#643

Post by gadders »

cranekam wrote: post #506
gadders wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that approximately 20% of all UK COVID cases were caught in hospital. Not exactly the envy of the world. FWIW, I think we should keep the NHS and have it free at point of use. However, I don't really care how that service is provided - government employees, private, whatever - as long as the service is good.

> Let's not forget that approximately 20% of all UK COVID cases were caught in hospital. Not exactly the envy of the world. Do you have a source for this? How does it stack up against other countries? Is it possible a greater share of people were hospitalised and thus the number of infections at hospitals was higher as a result?

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/the-ongoing-problem-of-hospita...

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#644

Post by gadders »

pydry wrote: post #525
gadders wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that approximately 20% of all UK COVID cases were caught in hospital. Not exactly the envy of the world. FWIW, I think we should keep the NHS and have it free at point of use. However, I don't really care how that service is provided - government employees, private, whatever - as long as the service is good.

It's been getting steadily albeit very slowly worse for years. The Conservative government has been following a variant of the privatization handbook for over a decade now: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... Overall costs have not been going down much but various parts of the service are given to contractors who do a worse job at a higher price and take a fat cut. Richard Branson notably…

The key principle of the NHS is "free at the point of delivery". I don't really care who provides the service.

And let's not forget Tony Blair put in place some internal market reforms as well.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#645

Post by Nursie »

Nextgrid wrote: post #632
Nursie wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only a couple went to the extent of attempting to prohibit their own citizens from leaving OK then, but the UK is currently one of those places. Without good reason it's currently prohibited. ANd I honestly don't have a problem with it, we're in the midst of a pandemic. :shrug:

I have a problem with it. The definition of "pandemic warranting a lockdown" is a national one, and other countries have a different opinion on it. By all means, protect your own country by preventing people from going in, but people should be free to leave to a different place with more relaxed rules at their own risk.

The issue is people coming back from these places.

Preventing your citizens from coming back is worse.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#646

Post by XCSme »

Nextgrid wrote: post #641
XCSme wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about enforcing the law is that it's still just politics. You can't suddenly start fining everyone without expecting a backlash. A law only works well when most people are respecting it, not when most people are breaking it.

Why will there be a backlash? Unlike some other laws where the general public typically contains both winners and losers, when it comes to the GDPR I can't see why the general public would be against it - the law doesn't restrict anything per-se, it just requires data processing to be made transparent to the user and allow them to decline.

Because most of the people who actually understand GDPR are the people who have to implement it, business owners. Threre a lot of business and website owners, which might make them the majority of general public in this case. Plus, as a politician you rarely want to upset an entire category od voters, especially a wealthy one.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#647

Post by Mauricebranagh »

bodelecta wrote: post #426
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and second amendment style gun rights too

Absolute nonsense. Only a few days ago it was the 25th anniversary of Dunblane, a massacre that will never be forgotten and out of which the snowdrop petition forced the government to have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Who in the UK looks at the US and thinks "yes, we should have more guns"?

A lot of the hardliner Brexiteers would go for it (an Englishman's home is his castle) an Farage actually mentioned it.

Brexiteers would see tony martin as a hero.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#648

Post by Eupolemos »

arethuza wrote: post #293
mytailorisrich wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, and that would have been absolutely fine. Democracy is to be able to campaign for what you believe in. But equally, politically, and democratically, it is not tenable to call a referendum (which is something quite rare in the UK) and then to ignore the result. So the reality is that the government and Parliament had to abide by the result even if the referendum was legally not binding. Now people are of co…

"Now people are of course free to campaign for the UK to join the EU." Or to campaign to leave the UK - which I suspect is a more achievable and sensible option. I'd doubt if the EU would want the UK back anyway.

Sure we would. It's like a tooth-gap - and there's also the issue of lacking a respected military in times that are getting a lot more... interesting.

But it feels like the UK needs to do some domestic cleanup before that has a chance of happening. Seems like the UK media and political landscape has gone completely off the rails.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#649

Post by ric2b »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #630
ric2b wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR has been in place for years now, why are people still spreading this narrative that it's super complex and dangerous for every company? Where are the examples of companies following the spirit of it getting punished regardless?

Enforcement has been light. Companies are still living in fear of an uncertain regime that means whatever the government body accusing you of violating says it means. A primary function of law is to give you certainty of your obligations.

Right, so this is little more than FUD.

The law is clear that enforcement is primarily done via helping companies correct mistakes, not immediately handing out fines, and that's what has been happening.

Re: UK to depart from GDPR

#650

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

benbristow wrote: post #610
glsdfgkjsklfj wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the end-user that gets the brunt. as they should. At least it is in their face now and can entice curiosity.

Let's be honest, the average user (even myself) will just click 'okay'. It doesn't help anyone and just causes annoyances for most users. If there was proper legislation to block the tracking full-stop then maybe it'd make a difference but in the end it's just a half-measure that causes frustration for both parties. The users that have to dismiss the prompts and websites that have to implement them.

you are missing my point.

if you visit site A, you click OK, get all the cookies, get screwed, and annoyed.

you visit site B, you don't see the popup, you don't get annoyed (and screwed with invisible tracking, but you just said you don't care about that)

In the long run, we should hope site B will get less attrition and keep more users, by being less annoying (as a consequence of not tracking you)

Post reply on HN