3 ms·

> 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-co

> 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.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. (and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything)
    - akersten 5y ago
      > Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect data sure, that's part of what the law grants you. But I believe this case is novel in that the data is as correct as possible (for intents and purpose of banking) yet the courts are requiring a cosmetic adjustment to the data. Cosmetic as in: it does not change the bank's or customer's understanding of the contract and business organization (i.e. I'm not trying to downplay ones attachment to accented letters, I'm talking about correct identification for business purposes). > and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything) Why not? What language in the GDPR would prevent that? It's the same violation as this case: the name is not displaying how the data subject wants it.
      - FateOfNations 5y ago
        > cosmetic adjustment I also fail to see the great importance of it, but apparently some people see it more than just a cosmetic issue...
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
My surname is completely unpronounceable by Americans, and I live in America. I got over it years ago and life continues. Perhaps the plaintiff in this case should learn to stop being offended by the world as it is.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Your name isn't unpronounceable, people are just lazy. And this isn't someone "being offended", this is a legal requirement of the GDPR to accurately record someone's name. "Zoë" is not the same as "Zoe" when you go searching for it in a DB.
  - CamouflagedKiwi 5y ago
    > Your name isn't unpronounceable, people are just lazy. That isn't necessarily true. We all have a certain set of phonemes we can enunciate, and further have limits on how they can be combined together. It is far from inconceivable that the OP could have a name which effectively _is_ unpronounceable to people speaking other languages (and you can't just put in more effort to fix this, so those people aren't "just lazy").
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      Sure there are sounds that humans cannot make, and combinations that are difficult for non-native speakers. I struggle with long Polynesian names, for example. But they're not unpronouceable... they just take some effort to learn. Why do you think you can't fix this? I've never encountered something that is physically unpronounceable (fictional eldritch abominations and extra terrrestials aside)
      - mhandley 5y ago
        There are sound differences that people who learned a language when young find clear, but which other people who did not learn when young simply do not perceive as being different. Yes, you may be physically able to make the sounds, but if you do not perceive the difference, you can't learn to say it right.

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.
- detaro 5y ago
  Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. (and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything)
  - akersten 5y ago
    > Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect data sure, that's part of what the law grants you. But I believe this case is novel in that the data is as correct as possible (for intents and purpose of banking) yet the courts are requiring a cosmetic adjustment to the data. Cosmetic as in: it does not change the bank's or customer's understanding of the contract and business organization (i.e. I'm not trying to downplay ones attachment to accented letters, I'm talking about correct identification for business purposes). > and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything) Why not? What language in the GDPR would prevent that? It's the same violation as this case: the name is not displaying how the data subject wants it.
    - FateOfNations 5y ago
      > cosmetic adjustment I also fail to see the great importance of it, but apparently some people see it more than just a cosmetic issue...

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

My surname is completely unpronounceable by Americans, and I live in America. I got over it years ago and life continues. Perhaps the plaintiff in this case should learn to stop being offended by the world as it is.

cgrealy 5y ago
Your name isn't unpronounceable, people are just lazy. And this isn't someone "being offended", this is a legal requirement of the GDPR to accurately record someone's name. "Zoë" is not the same as "Zoe" when you go searching for it in a DB.
- CamouflagedKiwi 5y ago
  > Your name isn't unpronounceable, people are just lazy. That isn't necessarily true. We all have a certain set of phonemes we can enunciate, and further have limits on how they can be combined together. It is far from inconceivable that the OP could have a name which effectively _is_ unpronounceable to people speaking other languages (and you can't just put in more effort to fix this, so those people aren't "just lazy").
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    Sure there are sounds that humans cannot make, and combinations that are difficult for non-native speakers. I struggle with long Polynesian names, for example. But they're not unpronouceable... they just take some effort to learn. Why do you think you can't fix this? I've never encountered something that is physically unpronounceable (fictional eldritch abominations and extra terrrestials aside)
    - mhandley 5y ago
      There are sound differences that people who learned a language when young find clear, but which other people who did not learn when young simply do not perceive as being different. Yes, you may be physically able to make the sounds, but if you do not perceive the difference, you can't learn to say it right.