The UK’s digital minister said the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) “constrains our ability to do business” and that as a “newly independent country without EU bureaucracy” we are committed to reducing “red tape” for data protection.
Recently appointed Michelle Donelan said the UK plans to “maximize Britain’s business growth potential post-Brexit opportunity”, adding: “We are on the Atlantic. It can act as a bridge across the world and act as a bridge. A global data centre”.
While this is a clear indication of the direction of data protection policies by the government’s new political leadership, the Data Protection and Digital Information Act (DPDIB), a proposed national replacement for the EU General Data Protection Regulation, is pending in Parliament.
Lawmakers are considering the bill, but despite government protests that the amendments would simplify or remove the law, UK tech companies are adamant about any changes. They should be aligned.
What this means for multinationals is that things can get very complicated for them too. Because it is covered by a uniform approach, companies based in the UK and Europe will have to make some adjustments if they are to do business with their territories using the same policy, if the UK is going to do it on its own.
Making GDP a domestic law was pulled by conservatives even before the so-called TIGRR report. It worked so well for NASA that it was on their post-Brexit wish list, which included scrapping the metric system in favor of imperialism.
But verifying data is also key to the law, and ruling parties seem to believe it is achievable, citing examples from Japan, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand.
Tech experts warn EU ‘data validity’ could be at risk if Brexit goes its own way.
Adequacy means that state law is deemed to comply with EU data protection rules. Companies in these countries can continue to do business with the EU and process data of EU citizens.
DPDIB and your rights
There are also concerns about the misuse of data subject rights, and some critics of the new law may loosen the definition of “consent” in the context of scientific research (section 3).
For example, legal eagle Chris Pounder of Hogdog Practice believes it encourages unethical research. He said the proposed changes to the DPDIB, where people’s data is collected for research, archival and statistical (RAS) purposes, would reduce the subject’s consent. legitimate interest The legal basis becomes more attractive to private RAS. “
Neil Thacker, CISO for EMEA at Netskope, spoke about the future pressure on data processors: load.
“Furthermore, obtaining GDP verification is a time-consuming process and risks creating further uncertainty for UK businesses and those wishing to do business with the UK. Information and data protection professionals will have headaches, and data subjects will be even more confusing. “®
“Coffee trailblazer. Social media ninja. Unapologetic web guru. Friendly music fan. Alcohol fanatic.”