NSRITISH BANKS, Manufacturers and carriers all need to process information about European customers and suppliers. Ensuring that they could continue to do so was one of the government’s main considerations when negotiating withdrawal from. EU.. In June, six months after the last departure, the UK determined that the data processing rules were “appropriate,” that is, EUGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) The data can continue to flow freely.
But three months later, the government began discussions on changes to these rules. He outlined his ambitions to use data “responsibly” and build an “innovation-friendly data protection regime” that makes it easier for organizations to adhere to “flexibility.” The call for answers was closed on November 19th. One came from Sir David Anderson, a barrister at Brick Court Chambers and an expert in European law.In short, he thinks there is a risk that the proposal will be inconsistent with the UK. EU The law jeopardizes adequacy and data flow.
As Sir Anderson’s legal opinion on page 25 explains, the government’s proposal is: EUTo increase the rights of businesses to retain data and reduce the rights of individuals GDPR Treat as the owner. It will be easier to use your personal data for political advertising and for purposes beyond what was originally envisioned. The category of “legitimate interests”, that is, the use in which data can be placed without asking for permission, is expanded.It is according to the technologyEnglandIndustry groups representing Google and Facebook in particular will facilitate all sorts of useful things, from detecting fraud to improving network security.
Technology companies don’t seem to be upset about the types of risks posed by Sir Anderson. They seem to be convinced that politics and the economy are on their side.If the UK loses frictionless access EU Data, it will be a mutual disaster. Companies in both locations face new costs because they have to create awkward new contracts to create workarounds or, in the worst case, relocate. It will seriously hinder the kind of data sharing that both police and national security agencies depend on. Therefore, the European Commission, which makes validity decisions, would not think Britain wants it.TechnologyEnglandMembers seem to rely on pragmaticism to protect them.
But Sir Anderson is not alone in his view of risk. November 22 EUWojciech Wiewiorowski, Data Protection Supervisor, said he is on a board of directors to advise the Commission on data protection issues. Mlex, An industry magazine dealing with regulatory issues, and if the proposed changes become law, it will surely trigger a debate about the validity of the United Kingdom. And when it comes to practicalism, the courts aren’t known for it. The challenge to validity in the European Court of Justice may be successful. Such an incident may not happen, let alone win, but the British government’s plans are more likely.
Hussein Kanji, a partner at London-based venture capital firm Hoxton Ventures, said it would be a waste of effort to change and maintain adequacy of UK data protection rules. If you have to follow two rulesets instead of one, you have a “tax on small businesses”. The law, which holds the opinion of Sir Anderson, focuses on technology policies that the heavy regulatory and compliance burden created by this dual regime can only be absorbed by the largest companies. office, AWO). For startups, these additional costs can represent the difference between success and failure.
Technicians like Mr. Kanji and Mr. Wood, and anything that might satisfy British companies, or even the British government, GDPR.. Now, for better or for worse, it is the de facto global standard.But with Brexit, Britain EUApproach to the data. When trying to regulate better than blocks, you must at least be careful not to make the life of your business worse. ■■
Is “enough” sufficient for this article in the UK section of the printed version? It was published under the heading.
Loose digital rules can hurt the UK tech department, but they don’t help
Source link Loose digital rules can hurt the UK tech department, but they don’t help