Comment by johnnycab | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnycab | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>GDPR is a minor update of DPA

It is not a minor update[1]. The Information Commissioner's Office is extremely aware and vexed, given the current state of affairs, that Data Protection Act 2018, needs to be aligned as closely to the GDPR to allow for information to flow freely after Brexit (Article 45)[2][3].

Furthermore, ICO has not been the epitome of a regulatory body enforcing the law to it's fullest extent, for which it has had the remit for ─ by stopping business' doing a runner or imposing maximum fines, neither has it had a good record on collecting the fines issued. Although, it has made a meal of some of the high profile rain-making cases which have already been in the public eye. It is ironic that there are no real details forthcoming from ICO and one has to resort to FoI requests to get any information on it's previous escapades under DPA 98![4]

[1] https://www.dpocentre.com/difference-dpa2018-and-gdpr/

[2] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-45-gdpr/

[3] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-and-bre...

[4] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/25/millions_of_pounds_...

That is an entirely different issue. GDPR is effectively an update of DPA 1998 that it replaces. Most is the same, definitions and scope are widened and modernised. A company that had implemented DPA(1998) was most of the way there for GDPR(2016). If you're going to get pedantic, DPA 1998 is one of the many implementations of EU's DPD 1995 as there is a fundamental difference between EU Regulation and EU Directive.

Clearly I am not calling GDPR (2016) a minor update of a subsequent law UK DPA (2018). That is UK's implementation of GDPR, which thanks to the stupidity that is Brexit may indeed have some issues interrelating with the EU. Probably the least of our issues, but still...

UK ICO's stance is fairly well known, but I don't think they can be held responsible for businesses that liquidate in the face of fine. That seems more likely to be an issue of UK company law.

>UK ICO's stance is fairly well known, but I don't think they can be held responsible for businesses that liquidate in the face of fine. That seems more likely to be an issue of UK company law.

You are confusing ICO's stance and responsibility with it's reluctance to enforce powers, which have already been granted to them by the government, in order to pursue negligent cases and collect fines under the UK law.

The Insolvency Service has general powers to investigate both insolvent and active companies, including those companies that undertake direct marketing activities. If a director has deliberately acted to the detriment of the company and/or its creditors, action may be taken against the directors under the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986.

That's the Insolvency Service, which isn't ICO, and presumably they (IS) would have to instigate action. I've no idea how it interrelates with ICO's powers, but I'm completely outside my knowledge here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com