Privacy & compliance, reprised

I have had a look at the changes in Law, and thus the potential changes in data protection strategy since I first wrote about the conflicts between privacy, compliance and law enforcement.

The US courts have been siding with citizens and their privacy rights, the ECJ has been doing the same. Parliament has been going in the opposite direction, although the Supreme Court has declared the Data Retention laws to be contrary to Human Rights Law and should we actually leave the EU we will find obtaining an “Adequacy” agreement harder than we’d hope as the EU Parliament, Commission and the EU Data Protection Supervisory board focus on the rights of privacy from Governments. This will be a significant problem if the ECJ strikes down the model clauses and binding corporate rules.

I briefly touch on the fact that the European Laws are meant to be implementing the globally agreed seven principles of Data Protection, of Notice, Purpose, Consent, Security, Disclosure, Access and Accountability and that in a rights based jurisdiction, these rights must be protected from the Government as well as from Corporates.

sevenprinciples
The seven principles of data protection

 

The language has developed since 1980 but these principles were agree by the OECD in 1980.

I conclude the article by saying,

Today, under EU law, the lawful purpose would seem to be more flexible, cross border transfers are more restricted, and may become more so, and the EU is more concerned about nation state compliance; it’s what you’d expect from a political entity consisting of states and the children of people surviving fascist or Stalinist rule.

This political heritage should be remembered by those that see these laws merely as a business burden,

Deal or No Deal

I was reading my news feeds this morning and of course Brexit comes up. Richard Corbett, now the Leader of the European PLP writes that when Labour in the Commons considers the Lord’s amendments to the European Union Withdrawal Bill, while there is a lot of noise about remaining in the single market or the European Economic Area, a more important amendment might be the establishment of a parliamentary “meaningful vote”. At the moment the Government plan to offer Parliament a “Deal or No Deal” vote, the opportunity to tell them to think again or remain must be on the table.

Anthony Barnett, writes an open letter to Remainers, where the thrust of the article is to pose a new hope, probably arguing “Remain but Reform” which is something a Labour Government might realistically undertake but he points at a blog by Dominic Cummings, the former Director of “Vote Leave” who is more than a little disappointed with the progress made in negotiating Brexit. Cummings’ diatribe reflects in my mind the foolish simplicity, held by, it would seem, many Tory’s that Government’s decide and people follow.

In James Graham’s play, “This House”, possibly the central speech is between the two party deputy chief whips where they reflect on the growing split between both the Parties as butskellism ended and the growing dichotomy between the government and governed. Both Harrison and Wetherill had served in the wartime military, and both had worked outside politics; they became parliamentarians with a hinterland in the real economy and thus understood that people are complicated. The growth of the career politician has led to a fantasy understanding of how society and politics work.

During the Coalition, it seemed that they thought they could press policy buttons and it would have the effect they wanted. There was never any plan as to what would happen if the great unwashed masses misbehaved, as we always will. It’s the result of apprenticeships formed in the student movement and the advancement of sea lawyers with no experience of real life, and often little connection with their electorates.

 

Brexit and Labour’s 2017 manifesto

Some Lexiters claim that the EU treaties will inhibit a Labour Government if it tried to implement its 2017 manifesto. It is argued that the single market would inhibit industrial policy and the stability and growth pact would inhibit macro-economic policy. I don’t think this is so and have written up my notes on my wiki.

The single market does not inhibit an industrial policy, and the stability and growth pact has no enforcement mechanism for the UK. (Another opt-out which we will lose if we leave and seek to rejoin).

Soft-Brexit?

I had dinner with an old friend last night, and one of the topics of conversation was Brexit, he’s of the view that the Government will negotiate a transition period which will be like the EEA and close a deal during the transition either the same or maybe like Ukraine’s. In this case, we may well then decide we want to re-join once we know what the final deal is like and they reckon the EU will let us back in. We’d probably lose the rebate, immunity from the Euro and being outside Schengen.

The subversion of democracy by big data

The subversion of democracy by big data

The fabulous Carol Cadwalladyr brings us the next instalment of undoing the surveillance states control over our democracies.

In an article “The Great British Brexit Robbery”, she and the Guardian showed how the Tories and the Brexit Leave Campaigns had used US Data Aanlytics companies to influence the Brexit referendum. It is alleged that the personal data was obtained illegally, its processing was illegal and that it was an undeclared election/referendum expense. The evidence was sufficient for the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Electoral Commission to launch investigations.

Over the last two days, Facebook have suspended Cambridge Analytica & one other company and the latter’s Principal for breaking their terms and conditions and in one case a breach of contract not to pass data on. The story is reported in the Guardian in a story called, “‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower” , which documents the contractual paper trial. This happened two years ago and it is alleged that Facebook knew of it then. It is a crime in many jurisdictions, including California to not notify either the regulators or the data subjects of a breach/leak of personal data.

Sadly 🤔 they have been accused of misleading the House of Commons, select committee inquiry into Fake News. It has been denied that Cambridge Analytica had Facebook data in a verbal submission. Its Chair, Damian Collins, is quite forthright, accusing Facebook of sending under informed representatives to answer the committee’s questions. The word wilful ignorance comes to mind.

As Brits, we need to see if crimes were committed during the 2015 & 2017 General Elections and/or the Brexit Refrendum but this can’t be good for Facebook’s reputation.

ooOOOoo

I wish we still had Storify, this is one for them.

The image is from the Guardian on the story on Parliament’s reaction.

Brexit’s Red Lines

Last month, was it really under 30 days ago, Michael Barnier produced a slide, showing the impact of the British Government’s self-imposed Red lines on the likely end-state of the UK’s relationship with the EU.

It shows that the only option is a bespoke trade deal on the lines of the Canadian/EU one, which famously took 7 years to negotiate.  It also shows that the only other option is a No Deal Brexit.

Second Mandate

Owen Jones posts why he thinks the Referendum vote can’t be wished away, and asks for a considered reply as to why he’s wrong!

I wrote the following; I wrote it for twitter, which is why it is styled as it is, but will reply to the thread by pointing here since it currently has over 250 replies and posting another 9 seems a bit self indulgent.

You and others argue that the Referendum mandate is considered inviolate by the Leave voters, but you don’t know; its mandate has been superseded by the 2017 General Election and it didn’t agree any terms of departure.

It is common sense and the current law, that we should collectively determine if the terms negotiated by the government, when we know them meet the will of the people which would probably need to be by referendum; if departure includes a transitional agreement or joining the EEA, there must be a referendum under Cameron’s European Union Act 2011.

It is not a second referendum on whether to leave, it’s a first referendum on whether a known future is desired. In my words from last year, we are asking ourselves if this is what we meant!

WRT to Labour’s electoral arithmetic, there are more Remainers voting Labour than Leavers. The risk to Labour of supporting an inadequate Tory deal is greater than opposing it. Why do you ask the majority to suck it up, rather than Labour’s Leavers?

Corbyn and his advisors need to be very careful; it’s likely that most of his leadership voters and supporters are Remainers. Most of his closest advisors would seem not to be.

On the messengers, not much to say, when you’re right …. I am not a fan of much of Adonis’s body work but I assume, despite his Progress alignment that he is acting in good faith, the name calling is not helpful but neither is the use of the issue to re-open old wounds.

I agree we need a message of hope, which was missing from the original Remain campaign although it would seem that many have been persuaded to Remain by the debate around the terms of departure. It’s hard, the freedom to learn, love. work and live anywhere in Europe in a human rights based jurisdiction doesn’t seem to be enough.