back to article Heard the one about the two landmark EU data rights' rulings? These countries haven't

Most EU member states’ rules on data retention do not comply with fundamental human rights, according to a survey by civil rights campaign group Privacy International. The group assessed (PDF) the legislation on bulk data retention - which ask telcos to store large amounts of data for access by government agencies - in 21 …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Coat

    That's wierd

    I seem to recall repeatedly reading how the EU was so overbearing on individual countries - I even think I read that Brexit was (in part) to get away from such legal pressure . . .

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: That's wierd

      Ah yes, "overbearing" as in slapping down politicians for dumb rules drawn up to satisfy either their own despotic paranoia or (as often) their dancing to the tabloid scare stories?

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: That's wierd

      @ Pascal Monett

      And in response I say banana's. Or jam.

      1. Alt C

        Re: That's wierd

        @codejunky

        you mean the bananas that we (UK) catagorised by size and shape for trade before the EU standardised the rules? - good grief if that's your knowledge of the EU no wonder you voted to leave.

        I won't mention you seem to equate our politicians getting slapped down for crap laws and treating us all like criminals with trade standardisation rules. oh hang on I did - what a weird fantasy world you live in

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: That's wierd

          @ Alt C

          "you mean the bananas that we (UK) catagorised by size and shape for trade before the EU standardised the rules? - good grief if that's your knowledge of the EU no wonder you voted to leave."

          You do know it wasnt a law. The EU made it criminal. The EU actually made the shape of a banana criminal! Yup I know why I voted leave.

          @ Doctor Syntax

          "Are you a greengrocer?"

          No. I am also not an MEP nor an MP nor politically affiliated but I do make voting decisions based on politics. And not just the policies that directly affect me either!

          1. Alt C

            Re: That's wierd

            @codejunky

            er no they made claiming your product was one thing when it was something else an offence just like we have the misrepresentation act 1967 as part of contract law.

            Please stop reading everything the daily fail tells you - I can only think from your statement you voted to leave because you are against consumer protection which is what that particular EU directive was about

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: That's wierd

              @ Alt C

              "er no they made claiming your product was one thing when it was something else an offence just like we have the misrepresentation act 1967 as part of contract law."

              Eh? We had standards, they created a criminal law. The difference? One is a standard and if you dont meet it you will not be trusted in future (traded with). Vs its a law with fines and/or prison time.

              "Please stop reading everything the daily fail tells you"

              I dont read the daily mail. Shall I assume you get your information from EU pamphlets?

              "I can only think from your statement you voted to leave because you are against consumer protection which is what that particular EU directive was about"

              You are right I voted leave, but you are completely wrong about my views on consumer protection. I cant say I consider the shape of a banana a protection issue. I dont see how defining the exact fruits which can be made into a spreadable jelly to be acceptable to the name Jam and everything else excluded. Are you seriously saying that Europeans are so incredibly thick (UK is in Europe too) that they feel a banana is misrepresented as a banana if it is shaped slightly different? Are you claiming Europeans are so thick they need jam to be a restricted set of fruits or they will get confused?

              Now personally I give Europeans and most people of this world more credit than that. And certainly dont consider it a criminal matter.

              1. Alt C

                Re: That's wierd

                @codejunky

                no I read the acts, directives and examine the case law as appropriate before commenting.

                So when talking about bananas - different countries had different standards - they harmonised them and yes the made it a criminal act to miss sell a product as exceptional if it were class 1 or 2 - in my book thats consumer protection - its a bad thing to rely on caveat emptor and allow a rogue trader to carry on regardless.

                Jam once again - we (UK) had standards for jam, marmalade and other preserves before the legislation and different countries called preserves different things - once again they standardised things so people in different countires knew what thay were bying - hardly a bad thing - its not about people being stupid but helping out with cultural differences.

                but again you miss my point - passing directives to ease trade you see as a bad thing - restricting our government passing broad, badly worded and unjust laws is something you don't think is a positive?

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: That's wierd

                  @ Alt C

                  At least you seem to know what your talking about even if we disagree about it being positive or consumer protection. We already have laws concerning labelling what is in foodstuffs so precise and over specific laws dictating do seem pretty far out to me.

                  I am of the opinion that centrally planned economies dont work, based on the centrally planned economies failing vs less restricted ones. The issue becomes interesting if the genus of banana for example is wiped out or severely damaged by disease just as previous ones have and customers want something with a different characteristic. It requires either the over specific laws to be ignored (as over specific old laws tend to) and everyone to technically be criminal or for the law to be updated by a lumbering and slow bureaucracy.

                  Same applies with jam for example that the customer desires something, a producer can produce it, but for some reason of pure stupidity it cannot be called what it is because it doesnt meet the exceptionally tightly defined criteria (very specific list of fruits) to be called jam. This is petty micromanaging which customers and retailers can achieve themselves without the gentle caressing hand of a lumbering government bureaucracy to screw up.

                  Trade is desire. We want something so we trade for it. At no point does that say the gov needs to specifically and dictatorially specify what very specific things must absolutely be called.

                  1. Alt C

                    Re: That's wierd

                    Yup we do disagree on this and many other things EU related but at least that disagrement tries to be respectful - unlike a lot of the discourse I see around the net. (and yes I do know I sometimes slip :)) but always good to have a proper discussion.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That's wierd

                "Are you claiming Europeans are so thick they need jam to be a restricted set of fruits or they will get confused?"

                That's simplfiying it to the point of being a little misleading - it also listed the other ingredients which were allowed (proportion of fruit, sugar, etc). It's more defining what is and is not acceptable as a product (so when someone steps over the line, you have an appropriate stick to smack them with). Example - way back when, some cheap strawberry jam used to include very small wooden chips to replicate the texture of strawberry pips as the fruit it was made from didn't have enough real pips (i.e. made from partial/squashed fruit, etc) - not something which was common knowledge, and not something I would want to be eating, nor find to be acceptable practice. See also giving honey a visually crystalline texture by adding glass powder.

                TL;DR - right idea, wrong implementation, from what I've read.

                "And certainly dont consider it a criminal matter."

                Depends how serious of a mis-representation it is, really.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: That's wierd

        "banana's"

        Are you a greengrocer?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I guess this means when the GDPR goes into effect in May that the EU will be cool, knowing that even its own member states have data privacy fences to mend?

    Hah, just kidding. They've already got their long knives out for the UK and US.

  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

    Thank Charles Clarke and the Barcelona Bombings for the EU DR Directive

    Which in fact the Spanish didn't even ask for in the first place.

    I think I can see why quite a lot of the EU would be happy to see the back of the UK, and it's data fetishist Home Office cabal.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Thank Charles Clarke and the Barcelona Bombings for the EU DR Directive

      "I think I can see why quite a lot of the EU would be happy to see the back of the UK".

      Let me rephrase it like this as the nice and modest optimist I sometimes pretend to be, more true too.

      "I think I can see why quite a lot of the EU would be happy to see sanity back in the UK".

      What I do believe other EU countries are pondering about is if their countrymen also could be as gullible, fall as easily for blatant lies and be as ill informed about even the simplest facts.

      Quite frankly I think I should stop here but I believe the two party system was a problem, and a very British problem at that.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Very interesting...all that stuff about "data retention" and "compliance with laws"....

    ....but what about all the secret, undisclosed monitoring? What about the databases which citizens are not allowed to know about...top secret, would compromise security, etc. etc?

    *

    Why has Theresa May been so adamant about getting out from under the European Court of Justice since she was Home Secretary? Possible answer -- GCHQ has been hoovering up everything and keeping data about everything for ever...... Compliance with the law......don't make me laugh!!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Very interesting...all that stuff about "data retention" and "compliance with laws"....

      More here:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/08/european_court_must_rule_on_legality_of_uks_mass_surveillance_tribunal_says/

      1. So......there was PLENTY of ADMITTED illegal GCHQ activity before 2015.

      2. And the government wants to continue "in the interests of national security".

      Am I dreaming, or does that mean that TODAY GCHQ is STILL hoovering up everything and keeping data about everything for ever?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon