This thread is a shitshow of cynicism, everyone outdoing the others to come up with even more convoluted conspiracy stories how this isn't going to help or why it must be motivated by the data protection agency apparently being criminals themselves trying to erase evidence against them. It's quite a sad state of affairs, really.
Another conclusion one could draw from the story as reported is that, contrary to an untold number of assertions I've seen made on HN, GDPR does apply to governments and their institutions. It's a point made in just about every single other thread on the law, and one would expect someone noticing they were wrong, which would seem to be perfect basis for a useful comment. Alas, they all missed this story. I'm sure they'll be back.
A close cousin is, of course, the sense that such institutions will choose to ignore the law, as in any law, anyway, and without any risk of blowback or even chance of becoming a matter of public interest. The story itself would seem to contradict that notion to a certain degree, but that doesn't seem to diminish the opportunity of updating one's belief system with even more evidence supporting everything one has always known to be true.
It does formally apply do government institutions, but they have exemptions that their security neurosis will be as satisfied as if it would not apply.
The need for data collection is not even questioned and blindly accepted. That warrants a lot of criticism. What is surveillance if not an expression of cynicism?
> This thread is a shitshow of cynicism, everyone outdoing the others to come up with even more convoluted conspiracy stories how this isn't going to help or why it must be motivated by the data protection agency apparently being criminals themselves trying to erase evidence against them. It's quite a sad state of affairs, really.
It's sad that the EDPS would get dragged for this, we should be encouraging them. Other than that, if you have a thirst for privacy from government and lack dementia, there really is no such thing as too much cynicism.
> Another conclusion one could draw from the story as reported is that, contrary to an untold number of assertions I've seen made on HN, GDPR does apply to governments and their institutions. It's a point made in just about every single other thread on the law, and one would expect someone noticing they were wrong, which would seem to be perfect basis for a useful comment. Alas, they all missed this story. I'm sure they'll be back.
Law enforcement are all but exempt from the GDPR, which has nothing to do with this. I'm not 100% sure but I think they're referring to the Europol regulation[0].
> A close cousin is, of course, the sense that such institutions will choose to ignore the law, as in any law, anyway, and without any risk of blowback or even chance of becoming a matter of public interest. The story itself would seem to contradict that notion to a certain degree, but that doesn't seem to diminish the opportunity of updating one's belief system with even more evidence supporting everything one has always known to be true.
We've just learned that an EU wide law enforcement agency is ignoring the law governing them, are backchanneling with the Commission to get a new law on the books to whitewash the whole thing, and that the Commission is game. And there is nothing about this in any major newspaper in the member state I'm residing in.
Do I have the facts wrong? Because it seems nuts to suggest this would be a good time for people suspicious of law enforcement and the EU to take a moment to reflect.
Another conclusion one could draw from the story as reported is that, contrary to an untold number of assertions I've seen made on HN, GDPR does apply to governments and their institutions. It's a point made in just about every single other thread on the law, and one would expect someone noticing they were wrong, which would seem to be perfect basis for a useful comment. Alas, they all missed this story. I'm sure they'll be back.
A close cousin is, of course, the sense that such institutions will choose to ignore the law, as in any law, anyway, and without any risk of blowback or even chance of becoming a matter of public interest. The story itself would seem to contradict that notion to a certain degree, but that doesn't seem to diminish the opportunity of updating one's belief system with even more evidence supporting everything one has always known to be true.