5 ms·

> De geschillenkamer van de GBA heeft deze uitleg als niet afdoende aangezien. Dat een bankinstelling anno 2018 niet bij machte zou zijn om een naam van een kl

> De geschillenkamer van de GBA heeft deze uitleg als niet afdoende aangezien. Dat een bankinstelling anno 2018 niet bij machte zou zijn om een naam van een klant correct te schrijven onder uitleg dat zij nog gebruik maakt van een informaticasysteem van 1995, werd niet afdoende beschouwd. Ouch. Basically "That you're not able to write a customers name correctly in 2018 because you use a system from 1995 is not an excuse".

jerf 5y ago
The court does have a point in this case. There's a huge number of systems in the world that existed in some form in 1995 and were correctly handling names in 2018. It's not like that's some sort of weird case that nobody else has encountered.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Indeed: Iso 8859-1: 1985 Unicode: 1991 Utf-8: 1992 There is even IBM277 for an ebcdic version.
toyg 5y ago
That's absolutely fair. The law is the law, and GDPR has been adopted for 5 years at this point (enforced for 3), there has been ample time to replace noncompliant systems. If a car manufacturer gave you a new car without seatbelts "because the production chain was built in 1995", you would obviously sue them.
- trasz 5y ago
  In 1995 EBCDIC, just like mainframes in general, were already quite obsolete.
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    Depends on what you mean by “obsolete”. Were they superseded by more modern solutions? Absolutely. Were they nonfunctional? Hell no. I worked on several systems in the early 2000s that still had a big old mainframe at the back end. I’m pretty sure most airlines and banks still run them.
    - bcrl 5y ago
      A previous employer had to implement EBCDIC support to interoperate with mainframes just 5 or 6 years ago. Yes, banks are still adding features and new code that runs on their mainframes. IBM still seems to be cranking out new generations of mainframes every few years, so somebody must be paying for this.
- akersten 5y ago
  > ample time to replace noncompliant systems. I think the point here is this is completely out of left field as far as what anyone has insisted would be non-compliant with GDPR... If you had done a compliance audit the day GDPR passed, I highly doubt this shortcoming would have even made the footnotes. "Overly broad and interpretable law with rabid defenders is stretched to painful limits just as critics predicted" is the real story.
  - toyg 5y ago
    When two courts decide in the same way at the first chance, the interpretation is hardly stretched or painful. To me the story with GDPR has consistently looked like "IT companies unable and/or unwilling to comply with (or even read) laws when they feel they go against their established practices, no matter how bad such practices might be".
    - xxpor 5y ago
      I'm sure the hundreds of millions of euros this will probably cost ING is the most productive possible use of that capital. A real economic growth driver. If this guy cares so much, he can take his business to a competitor that gets it right.
  - notJim 5y ago
    I have no problem with this. We should not have to rename ourselves, or change our language because of computers or because of lazy companies' refusal to modernize. Both computers and companies serve us, not the other way around.
    - akersten 5y ago
      I'm not saying this is a bad outcome (modernization is overall a Good Thing), I'm saying it's bad that the GDPR is being used to achieve it. Before today, you cannot seriously tell me that (hypothetical) United Airlines being unable to print æ on your boarding pass would be a GDPR violation. No one would even have considered it. The best "GDPR auditors" that popped up to save the day with expensive consulting would have glossed right over it. And yet the overly broad language of the regulation allowed this contrived gotcha. And now any company that can't support emojis in your surname is now in the Naughty Bucket of GDPR Violators. I'm just shocked how so many hackers are ok with this law existing in its current form, just because it sometimes achieves things that they like. If we find ourselves asking "what else can we hit with this hammer," it's a bad law.

jerf 5y ago

The court does have a point in this case. There's a huge number of systems in the world that existed in some form in 1995 and were correctly handling names in 2018. It's not like that's some sort of weird case that nobody else has encountered.

bawolff 5y ago
Indeed: Iso 8859-1: 1985 Unicode: 1991 Utf-8: 1992 There is even IBM277 for an ebcdic version.

toyg 5y ago

That's absolutely fair. The law is the law, and GDPR has been adopted for 5 years at this point (enforced for 3), there has been ample time to replace noncompliant systems. If a car manufacturer gave you a new car without seatbelts "because the production chain was built in 1995", you would obviously sue them.

trasz 5y ago
In 1995 EBCDIC, just like mainframes in general, were already quite obsolete.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Depends on what you mean by “obsolete”. Were they superseded by more modern solutions? Absolutely. Were they nonfunctional? Hell no. I worked on several systems in the early 2000s that still had a big old mainframe at the back end. I’m pretty sure most airlines and banks still run them.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    A previous employer had to implement EBCDIC support to interoperate with mainframes just 5 or 6 years ago. Yes, banks are still adding features and new code that runs on their mainframes. IBM still seems to be cranking out new generations of mainframes every few years, so somebody must be paying for this.
akersten 5y ago
> ample time to replace noncompliant systems. I think the point here is this is completely out of left field as far as what anyone has insisted would be non-compliant with GDPR... If you had done a compliance audit the day GDPR passed, I highly doubt this shortcoming would have even made the footnotes. "Overly broad and interpretable law with rabid defenders is stretched to painful limits just as critics predicted" is the real story.
- toyg 5y ago
  When two courts decide in the same way at the first chance, the interpretation is hardly stretched or painful. To me the story with GDPR has consistently looked like "IT companies unable and/or unwilling to comply with (or even read) laws when they feel they go against their established practices, no matter how bad such practices might be".
  - xxpor 5y ago
    I'm sure the hundreds of millions of euros this will probably cost ING is the most productive possible use of that capital. A real economic growth driver. If this guy cares so much, he can take his business to a competitor that gets it right.
- notJim 5y ago
  I have no problem with this. We should not have to rename ourselves, or change our language because of computers or because of lazy companies' refusal to modernize. Both computers and companies serve us, not the other way around.
  - akersten 5y ago
    I'm not saying this is a bad outcome (modernization is overall a Good Thing), I'm saying it's bad that the GDPR is being used to achieve it. Before today, you cannot seriously tell me that (hypothetical) United Airlines being unable to print æ on your boarding pass would be a GDPR violation. No one would even have considered it. The best "GDPR auditors" that popped up to save the day with expensive consulting would have glossed right over it. And yet the overly broad language of the regulation allowed this contrived gotcha. And now any company that can't support emojis in your surname is now in the Naughty Bucket of GDPR Violators. I'm just shocked how so many hackers are ok with this law existing in its current form, just because it sometimes achieves things that they like. If we find ourselves asking "what else can we hit with this hammer," it's a bad law.