Despite the promise of a bit of nudity, the session on “Naked
Citizens! The General Data Protection Regulation and why you should care about
it” at yesterday’s Open Rights Group conference in Central London attracted a pretty
small audience.
The day’s proceedings (in the lecture theatre
at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, next door to the Savoy Hotel) started with promising numbers in the audience. Some 350 people were due to attend for all or part of the day. Well over 200 people attended
the initial keynote speech, then half of them drifted away just before the commencement
of the second session, on the “Snoopers Charter – What’s the situation now?” Unfortunately,
the audience halved again as Anna Fielder from Privacy International, David Smith
from the ICO and Kasey Chappelle from Vodafone took their places on the stage
for a general reprise on what most privacy professionals already know.
And this was a pity, for what happened next was a vivid demonstration of what happens when a Panel Chairman is inadequately briefed about what the speakers are likely to say, and how long they are likely to speak for.
And this was a pity, for what happened next was a vivid demonstration of what happens when a Panel Chairman is inadequately briefed about what the speakers are likely to say, and how long they are likely to speak for.
Anna and David kept their opening remarks short. Anna
spoke for a few minutes on the main sticking points of the current negotiations
on the Regulation. David spoke for a little longer, explaining that there was no absolute certainty that
the measure would be agreed next year, as the European Parliamentary elections
in 2014 require agreement by Spring 2014 if there is to be sufficient Parliamentary
time for it to go through all the relevant stages. The ICO was in favour of the
introduction of sensible regulation, not red tape, and was mindful that a
balance had to be struck between privacy and other rights. Interesting. This is not language
I’ve heard coming from the European Commission for some time. The Commission
have spoken in terms of privacy as a fundamental right, but not one that necessarily
needs to be balanced with other rights. What else did he have to say? Well, David was marginally optimistic that
agreement would be reached, and that there is more that is good than is bad
with the current draft.
Then it was Kasey’s turn – and she went on for a significantly
longer time than had been taken by the others. She was the only speaker to use Power Point slides, and I can only assume that the Chairman knew what she was likely to say, and how long it would take her to say it. We, in the audience, were not in on the secret. And from what I saw, at no stage did the Chairman try to interrupt her.
In her view (which I increasingly agree with), privacy is not seen as a differentiator but as a matter of legal compliance - and an environment of more prescriptive rules will result in an environment increasingly dominated by lawyers. The trouble with lawyers is that they are often instructed to advise on explaining the minimum that needs to be done to ensure that the client stays out of trouble. Stuff the consumer experience, or a more holistic approach to privacy – what company directors are primarily concerned with is reducing their liabilities.
In her view (which I increasingly agree with), privacy is not seen as a differentiator but as a matter of legal compliance - and an environment of more prescriptive rules will result in an environment increasingly dominated by lawyers. The trouble with lawyers is that they are often instructed to advise on explaining the minimum that needs to be done to ensure that the client stays out of trouble. Stuff the consumer experience, or a more holistic approach to privacy – what company directors are primarily concerned with is reducing their liabilities.
Notwithstanding this rather bleak premise, Kasey explained in some detail how
Vodafone upheld its own privacy commitments (which create a culture of privacy
across the company) with a Privacy Risk Management System (with standard global
risk control commitments) and a Critical Privacy Risk Register (a formal
management and global policy governance of the most critical risks facing the company
and the communications industry). All good corporate stuff, but it wasn’t about
the Regulation - and that was what I had come to hear about.
With almost ten minutes of the session left to run, Kasey wound up
and I braced myself to see the naked citizens. Alas, none were to be found, and
I was left with the sense of frustration that Anna and David must have felt, perhaps
hoping for a longer debate on the actual Regulation itself. Had David known
that he would devote some 5 hours travelling time for the privilege
of addressing 100 people for just over 10 minutes, he might have decided to have
offered the speaking slot to another oik at the ICO, so he could spend his Saturday mowing his lawn.
Note:
Other sessions were run concurrently, discussing a host of
other hot topics, with many delegates keen to focus on issues that were on the
front pages of many national newspapers yesterday. I won’t touch on those issues in this
blog – other than to report that Tim Wu, a technology historian, began his
keynote speech by announcing (in a rather hysterical manner, I thought) that, looking
at the papers, we are in a state of absolute crisis, and it is therefore
absolutely essential that a strong and effective digital rights movement continues
to exist.
Image Note:
Do not be concerned. Conference delegates were advised that their
images might captured if they sat in particular sections of the audience.
.
.
Posts
