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,

Stop the Tory Brexit

And now I discover a reason for staying in Momentum, here’s a petition calling on Momentum to consult its members on the subject of Brexit.

Alena says,

We are proud members of Momentum and consistent supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party and of the 2017 election manifesto. We deplore the persistent attacks of the right-wing of the Labour Party and their attempts to weaponise the issue of Brexit against our party leadership.

But we are equally opposed to the Tory Brexit now on offer. It is a disaster for working class people, public services, peace in Ireland, migrants, the environment, human rights, jobs and our children’s futures – the complete opposite of everything a socialist government would do. The so-called soft Brexit being pushed by neo-liberal “centrists” is hardly better: it threatens to turn us into a vassal state of Europe, making us rule takers not rule makers.

We call for a vote of all Momentum members this summer to decide whether to oppose Tory Brexit, and whether to campaign for Labour to hold a vote at Annual Conference in September on giving the people the final say on the Brexit deal.

We are a democratic socialist movement, and under Momentum’s constitution we can trigger a vote of all members with signatures from around 4000 Momentum members – please add your name today, and spread the word!

Lewisham East, Labour Hold

Congratulations Janet

How good was the victory? The turnout was low, 33.3%, as one might expect for a by-election held one month after Borough Mayor and Council elections.

Here’s how the vote share works over the last three elections.

The Labour vote remains above 50% i.e. they beat all the rest put together.

The Liberal Democrats leapfrog the Tories from 3rd with a lost deposit to 2nd, seemingly taking votes from both Labour and the Tories. (It wasn’t a good week for the Tories over Brexit in this strongly remain constituency.) We assume that Brexit was the reason for a LibDem resurgence but there may have been a reaction to Labour’s absolute victory on the Council where they hold every seat.

I think that both national and Lewisham politics is getting more tribal; there’s less conversations about politics & policy on the doorstep and this is shown by the fact everyone except Labour, LibDems and Tories lost their deposits.

Another remarkable trend is the collapse of UKIP from 3rd in 2015 to irrelevant in 2018, although they beat “For Britain” yeterday.

Marx in Lee

In Britain Elect’s pen picture of Lewisham East, they state that Karl Marx lived in Lee, one of the constituent parts of the parliamentary constituency although there seems little record of that fact, other than a plaque in a local pub and this video.

 

Labour’s rules & PR Lists

As far as I know, we already have proportional voting systems in the UK, in Scotland & Wales for the their Assemblies, in London for the GLA and for the Members of the European Parliament. I have experience of standing for and/or selecting/triggering Labour candidates in the latter positions.

While much focus of late has been on selecting/re-selecting MPs in the House of Commons these positions represent a special case.

Labour’s re-selection processes for “list” based seats in local government in England, currently only the GLA, unless we remain in the EU requires that incumbents are confirmed or otherwise as candidates (via a trigger ballot), and that new candidates are found and approved by panel. All the candidates are then ordered by a member’s vote, with the incumbents guaranteed the highest places.

This protection i.e. the guarantee that incumbents must get the highest ranking places on the list should be removed; the member’s votes should determine the order that incumbents and challengers are placed on the list, subject to the gender quota rules. The members should be offered an additional two candidates, who then become available for call up in the case that any of the selected candidates are unable to run.

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.

 

Re-selection goes to Conference

The Young Labour National Committee have submitted a rule change on mandatory reselection to LP National Conference. Sara Doyle posts the text on twitter ….

Time in the Garden

My mind turns to Gardening Leave, not because I have any outstanding disputes with any of my ex-employers but because there seems to be a lack of clarity as to when and why one might use it if one was an employer.

If someone is on Gardening Leave they remain an employee and may not work for anyone else, although this also depends on the terms of the employment contract. In a world of zero hours contracts, this maybe a part of the law that will be re-examined.

For full time workers though, more and more companies are placing terms in their contracts that if one should, say, invent a new cheese in one’s back garden, then the company claims the exploitation rights. All inventions belong to your employer. It’s unclear if another month, or three months would make much difference though, but protecting the company’s intellectual property remains a motive for delaying people leaving as does getting them off site and off the IT systems.

Another key advantage is that the employee cannot work for a competitor, again, employers often via employment contracts try and restrain people’s ability to compete with them on quitting, but this is fraught with legal risk; keeping them on the books is legally much safer. Many sales staff may find themselves constrained in this way and the strengthened data protection laws will make it harder for them to take their address books with them.

A specific and unusual example of this is where staff of regulatory, political policy or law enforcement organisations leave their job to work for regulated entities. In fact, the public sector has constraints on this, but they have been weakened in time over the decades. The public sector employment contracts nearly all have clauses similar to private sector non-compete clauses but restraining public servants from working with organisations that they had regulatory or procurement relationships with. Despite this many lobbying organisations employ ex-politicians, civil servants and police. (In some ways, the movement in the other direction is more corrupt.)

The final example is where someone has financial or judicially regulated authority within the organisation. It’s usually inappropriate to leave such senior staff in place once they have resigned, and certainly of there are question marks on their remaining commitment. This of course is compounded where a compromise agreement has been signed to avoid the need to undertake disciplinary or redundancy processes. Management need to ensure that they are acting in the interests of the organisation’s stakeholders and protect themselves against a class action.

That’s where the Labour Party finds itself. A huge swath of its senior staff have put in their notice, they remain able to exercise their authority and for some reason are being permitted to work their notice, in some cases it would seem an extended notice.

It should be noted that for the ex-employee, if someone with a full time job, one or three months gardening leave can be a welcome gift.