3 ms·

"Useless" seems unfair and inaccurate. In this case it appears they have successfully addressed a problem for example. Like most UK government services the ICO

"Useless" seems unfair and inaccurate. In this case it appears they have successfully addressed a problem for example. Like most UK government services the ICO are currently operating with a fraction of the resources they need to meet the responsibilities they've been given. While I respect your personal effort to get bad actors to change and I share your disappointment that the officials who should be helping have not been effective in your cases, maybe you are aiming your criticism at the wrong target?

Nextgrid 3y ago
> the ICO are currently operating with a fraction of the resources But the amount of resources shouldn't dictate the penalty amount once resources have already been expended on the investigation? My problem with the ICO as it stands is that the bar for a complaint is very high, giving the company many chances to selectively rectify the situation but only for the complainant - imagine if the penalty for theft was just to give back the stolen property and only if you got caught. The very high bar with regards to complaints should mean that for a complaint to be considered valid the company must've ignored the multiple attempts they get to rectify the situation, so the fine should be substantial. As it stands, not only does the complaints process effectively set the example that it's OK to breach the GDPR as long as you can selectively apply it to the very small minority that complains, but even that when a complaint does make it through it turns out the consequences are not a problem.
- Silhouette 3y ago
  But the amount of resources shouldn't dictate the penalty amount once resources have already been expended on the investigation? I don't know enough about the process to answer that. Maybe it's true but if penalties can be challenged and a higher penalty will in practice cost more to defend then maybe not. FWIW I agree there is a morality problem in keeping rules that are not then effectively enforced. But I'd rather have a quantitative problem that the principle is being recognised and a penalty applied even though the penalty isn't yet big enough to represent a true deterrent than the qualitative problem that there is no mechanism to penalise bad behaviour at all. One of these is much easier to push towards a good solution over time than the other. And I'd also rather converge on a good solution from this direction than go in very heavy-handed as some were suggesting elsewhere in this discussion and potentially cause catastrophic side effects very quickly.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > Maybe it's true but if penalties can be challenged and a higher penalty will in practice cost more to defend then maybe not. That ascribes a level of foresight that you don't see anywhere else in government. Very unlikely, corruption more probable explanation.
    - Silhouette 3y ago
      Again I don't think that's entirely fair. There are plenty of competent and well-intentioned people working within "government" in the broad sense in this country. The public sector here is huge and does a lot of useful things, many of which we take for granted but would certainly miss if they went away. We just notice the big screw-ups because when you're running a national government for tens of millions of people those headline failures are going to have an impact on a lot of people. When it comes to government I am certainly a sceptic of modern politics but with the rank and file staff in the civil service, QUANGOs, and other government-run services I prefer to assume good faith. Clearly a lot of those people got dealt a bad hand with the recent administrations in particular but no matter which colour of politics is currently running the show there will always be some element of that and yet those useful things still get done.

Nextgrid 3y ago

> the ICO are currently operating with a fraction of the resources But the amount of resources shouldn't dictate the penalty amount once resources have already been expended on the investigation? My problem with the ICO as it stands is that the bar for a complaint is very high, giving the company many chances to selectively rectify the situation but only for the complainant - imagine if the penalty for theft was just to give back the stolen property and only if you got caught. The very high bar with regards to complaints should mean that for a complaint to be considered valid the company must've ignored the multiple attempts they get to rectify the situation, so the fine should be substantial. As it stands, not only does the complaints process effectively set the example that it's OK to breach the GDPR as long as you can selectively apply it to the very small minority that complains, but even that when a complaint does make it through it turns out the consequences are not a problem.

Silhouette 3y ago
But the amount of resources shouldn't dictate the penalty amount once resources have already been expended on the investigation? I don't know enough about the process to answer that. Maybe it's true but if penalties can be challenged and a higher penalty will in practice cost more to defend then maybe not. FWIW I agree there is a morality problem in keeping rules that are not then effectively enforced. But I'd rather have a quantitative problem that the principle is being recognised and a penalty applied even though the penalty isn't yet big enough to represent a true deterrent than the qualitative problem that there is no mechanism to penalise bad behaviour at all. One of these is much easier to push towards a good solution over time than the other. And I'd also rather converge on a good solution from this direction than go in very heavy-handed as some were suggesting elsewhere in this discussion and potentially cause catastrophic side effects very quickly.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > Maybe it's true but if penalties can be challenged and a higher penalty will in practice cost more to defend then maybe not. That ascribes a level of foresight that you don't see anywhere else in government. Very unlikely, corruption more probable explanation.
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    Again I don't think that's entirely fair. There are plenty of competent and well-intentioned people working within "government" in the broad sense in this country. The public sector here is huge and does a lot of useful things, many of which we take for granted but would certainly miss if they went away. We just notice the big screw-ups because when you're running a national government for tens of millions of people those headline failures are going to have an impact on a lot of people. When it comes to government I am certainly a sceptic of modern politics but with the rank and file staff in the civil service, QUANGOs, and other government-run services I prefer to assume good faith. Clearly a lot of those people got dealt a bad hand with the recent administrations in particular but no matter which colour of politics is currently running the show there will always be some element of that and yet those useful things still get done.