Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 01 2018, @12:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the will-it-also-reduce-spam-across-the-pond? dept.

Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary has penned an opinion piece about GDPR in the Financial Times[Paywalled, but a search on quoted text is fruitful. -Ed.]

In short, GDPR is unclear -- "guidance on GDPR implementation is too vague" -- will create barriers to trade -- "serious, unclear legal obligations for both private and public sector entities, including the US government", could threaten public welfare on both sides of the Atlantic, delay the approval of new life-saving drugs and prevent the effective treatment of epidemics like Ebola.

[...] We do not have a clear understanding of what is required to comply, the commerce secretary sighs.

And then Whois.

GDPR also raises concern for law enforcement and intellectual property rights by restricting access to publicly available internet domain-name registration data. We anticipate companies will either stop providing "Whois" lookup services outright, or make it hard to access information. That could stop law enforcement from ascertaining who is behind websites that propagate terrorist information, sponsor malicious botnets or steal IP addresses.

Finally, secretary Ross dropped an interesting note, about the US Postal Service no less. Tantamount is that "the new rules will prevent EU postal operators from providing the personal data on individuals it needs to process inbound mail."

Assuming the commerce secretary isn't talking about name and address: what other personal information is required?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:20AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:20AM (#687176)

    I imagine there's a big smirking grin on the face of some javascript programmer in Forbes.com' IT department.

    Malicious compliance is still compliance. I expect we'll see more of this, assuming the 40% EU advertising falloff figure I saw the other day was legit.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:47AM (#687182)

    Malicious compliance is still compliance.

    Not in Europe. Our regulators get really pissed off at stuff like that, and they're likely to hit you with a bigger fine than if you just didn't do anything. AFAIK, most regulations have provisions that allow for dropping that particular (sledge)hammer.

    If they don't get their shit together, Forbes may be in for some hilarious revelations. Well, hilarious for me. :D

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:16PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:16PM (#687474)

    But an opt-out system is not compliant, malicious or not. Quoting recital 32 [gdpr-info.eu], which provides rationale for article 7 [gdpr-info.eu]:

    Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act [..] This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services [..] Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:39PM (#687727)

      > Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent

      #MeToo