4 ms·

"Do as we say, not as we do."

krastanov 8y ago
On the contrary, I expect them to apply the law to themselves in the same manner they would apply it to, say, an important NGO whose IT staff have non-maliciously forgotten to update their stack. It is pretty common for large organizations, whether gov, NGOs, or corporate, to have issues where the left hand does not know what the right does. It is only a problem if these screw-ups are mission critical or if they stay unfixed for long. Mistakes happen, we should be judged by how we prevent the bad ones and how we act after they happen.
- briandear 8y ago
  GDPR doesn’t apply to member states. See chapter 1, Article 2, paragraph 2, section b.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    1.2.2.b indeed provides an exception for member states but explicitly only for the purpose of "Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU". (this is a ridiculous level of indirection...) Do you have an understanding of "Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU"? My reading of it is "the members are responsible for the security of the union, yada yada..." so it sounds like the typical exception that governments have, but I am am not quite certain of my interpretation. Jeez, the EU institutions are really good at being inscrutable :(
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU broadly describes the functioning of the European Union and the obligations of Member States with regards to the security and foreign policy of the union. The exemption in 1.2.2.b would rarely if ever apply to domestic matters. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_V:_General_Provisions_on_the_Union%27s_External_Action_Service_and_Specific_Provisions_on_the_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_T...
ozaark 8y ago
In the US a common version of this is for ADA laws on government websites. Many(most?) .gov domains aren't compliant. [1] Interestingly, successful lawsuits for private company websites breaching ADA have increased over the past couple of years. [1] Non-compliant: senate.gov , supremecourt.gov , congress.gov , justice.gov , etc
- tracker1 8y ago
  Working on a compliant application currently... the irony, is you can't use the main function of the app without being at least relatively sighted (the app displays scanned documents for confirmation)... but heaven forbid if my color contrast is 2% too little.
- pakitan 8y ago
  We're sued right now by a troll law firm for breach of ADA. I'm not even sure there is such thing as "compliant". ADA basically says "well, we're not accessibility experts, just follow WCAG 2.0 and you'll probably be fine". The problem is that while WCAG 2.0 is, IMO, a well designed set of guidelines, it's not meant to be used to assess a site as "compliant" or "non-compliant". This situation is beyond ridiculous.

On the contrary, I expect them to apply the law to themselves in the same manner they would apply it to, say, an important NGO whose IT staff have non-maliciously forgotten to update their stack. It is pretty common for large organizations, whether gov, NGOs, or corporate, to have issues where the left hand does not know what the right does. It is only a problem if these screw-ups are mission critical or if they stay unfixed for long. Mistakes happen, we should be judged by how we prevent the bad ones and how we act after they happen.

briandear 8y ago
GDPR doesn’t apply to member states. See chapter 1, Article 2, paragraph 2, section b.
- krastanov 8y ago
  1.2.2.b indeed provides an exception for member states but explicitly only for the purpose of "Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU". (this is a ridiculous level of indirection...) Do you have an understanding of "Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU"? My reading of it is "the members are responsible for the security of the union, yada yada..." so it sounds like the typical exception that governments have, but I am am not quite certain of my interpretation. Jeez, the EU institutions are really good at being inscrutable :(
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU broadly describes the functioning of the European Union and the obligations of Member States with regards to the security and foreign policy of the union. The exemption in 1.2.2.b would rarely if ever apply to domestic matters. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_V:_General_Provisions_on_the_Union%27s_External_Action_Service_and_Specific_Provisions_on_the_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_T...

ozaark 8y ago

In the US a common version of this is for ADA laws on government websites. Many(most?) .gov domains aren't compliant. [1] Interestingly, successful lawsuits for private company websites breaching ADA have increased over the past couple of years. [1] Non-compliant: senate.gov , supremecourt.gov , congress.gov , justice.gov , etc

tracker1 8y ago
Working on a compliant application currently... the irony, is you can't use the main function of the app without being at least relatively sighted (the app displays scanned documents for confirmation)... but heaven forbid if my color contrast is 2% too little.
pakitan 8y ago
We're sued right now by a troll law firm for breach of ADA. I'm not even sure there is such thing as "compliant". ADA basically says "well, we're not accessibility experts, just follow WCAG 2.0 and you'll probably be fine". The problem is that while WCAG 2.0 is, IMO, a well designed set of guidelines, it's not meant to be used to assess a site as "compliant" or "non-compliant". This situation is beyond ridiculous.