Not necessarily breaches of the data, but definitely violations of law regarding fair use, transparency, minimisation, design safety, that sort of thing. Expect a lot more legal chcallenges to come…

A regulator that declines to use its enforcement powers, that actively works to undermine and erode the laws it is supposed to be upholding, is worse than having no regulator at all.

Although the letter focuses heavily on data breaches and the security principle, the ICO’s complete refusal to enforce other aspects of DP law - such as lawfulness of processing and DS rights - presents the greater risk to individuals and the UK’s economy as a whole.

Democracy sucks when one is out-grouped. I’d rather have disproportionate representation of humanitarian, pro-social ethics than mob rule by the lowest common denominator

Who benefits and who bears the cost depends on who makes those decisions and what their values, motives and circumstances are.

Everyone wants the benefits, no-one wants to cover the costs.

I should turn off autocarrot, I guess - it’s annoying more than it’s useful to me.

Automating a task for convenience is the diametric opposite of giving it sufficient care and attention. There are benefits to cutting corners, of course - but it would be naive or disingenuous to pretend that those benefits don’t also come at a cost.

Sorry to hear that, wishing you good fortune in your hunt for a new gig

Unfair to cats - they do have an ethical code, it’s just that it’s based on the premise that they are the universe’s Ultimate Supreme Being and everything else is interactive scenery. Within that philosophy, cats are staunchly ethics-driven!

Those ‘guardrails’ are a) bolted on at the last minute to tick performative compliance boxes, b) superficial, and c) ineffective in practice.

As an autistic person who’s intensive interest is data protection; DP law only applies to the *processing* of personal data with a computer or structured filing system, therefore the man’s brain is out of scope and therefore retention is not unlawful.

(I know it’s satire but I can’t help myself)

It's so funny how all jobs demand of you to be sociable but the process of getting hired is the most anti-human it could possibly be.

All this does is weaponise the encoding of racism, ableism, cisnormative gender bias, and ageism - with *zero* correlation to actual job performance or outcomes. In fact, this is quite likely to result in wholesale hiring of photogenic duds, smooth incompetents and nodding donkeys.

You may jest, but I can 100% guarantee that if it isn’t already happening, the UK gov’t drive to push AI-related economic growth will make sure it does in the near future.

Beautiful!

Surveillance is not care.
Censorship is not education.
Paperwork is not protection.

And the UK’s data protection regulator is not just asleep at the wheel, it’s in a moribund doze having almost entirely given up on its own purpose.

This doesn’t protect kids at all - it’s a nakedly* cynical grab for data, profit and control.

*yes, like that

Even if the data is never ‘breached’ (yeah right, that totally WILL happen at some point); its potential for profitable profiling, exploitation and weaponisation is *enormous* - especially for those age-gating tech firms in regions without robust privacy or data protection regulation

Meanwhile, the unregulated age-gating tech providers are gobbling up huge amounts of monetisable identity data linked to adult content access, with opaque or inadequate privacy protections. (Also non-erotic LGBTQ education and support resources are being censored by the uptight straights).