The customer CEO never watched that presentation.
3,925 karma · joined January 2, 2012
I don’t think the modern day Privy Council ever met with Elizabeth II in such a way!
France only had kings at that point (in fact, Matilda’s son Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Acquitaine comes about because she didn’t give the king of France a son!)
Germany (HRE) selected their emperor so didn’t have succession problems in that sense.
Italy was a collection of city states, Naples was yet to form a kingdom.
Maybe Poland had an earlier queen? But then I don’t know if English nobles paid much attention to Poland, to be honest!
Let me repeat: this is not intended as a thesis. It’s a small historical tale to explain the background of a period of time in early mediaeval England. It assumes you know how women were viewed during that time period and the example provides flavour. If you want to contradict its claims, just post the articles that shows differently.
If you want to learn more about early medieval attitudes to women and power in England, it’s on you to learn, not on the article to triple its length to prove every minor claim.
- Bush invaded Iraq because an oil company funded his campaign?
- Obama bailed out banks (a thing every government worldwide was doing) because banks funded his campaign?
There’s no evidence of these claims, compared to the evidence of a fucking private jet being bought for Trump in comparison. Also Trump has enriched himself, personally, more than any president in history by quite some margin, using the office of President. I just wanted to show what you’re equivocating about, here.
An example: at my current job, we’re using LaunchDarkly for config management, not just rollout. This means an incident on LaunchDarkly didn’t just stop a rollout, it caused the system behaviour to change for a large number of customers as it reverted to the default.
Examples:
Experiment flags for A/B testing
Permission checks at a user level
Product flags for feature gating by plan
Rollout flags to launch a new feature gradually
Configuration for an account/system/feature
The number of times I had to push against the “just put it behind hasFeatureFlag(user, flag)” is more than I can count at this point! I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the DRY principle, to be honest.
The power to delete your data with them would actually result in exactly the situation you described, likely without the requester knowing that’s what’ll happen!
You’re only half right. If you habitually store data and never delete it from those stores, yes, you have to find and provide it. If they’re temporary (voicemail, fixing a specific issue) and you remove it as soon as it’s no longer needed, you’ll be fine.
> It included a vast amount of things that the company had inferred from the data.
If you’ve tied it to that person, it’s in scope. It’s literally part of GDPR.
> Customer service rep sends an email to their supervisor saying the customer won't take reasonable advice and then gets abusive and asking the supervisor how to deal with future calls from them?
Possibly but you could argue not because that could be business risk.
> I make a list on my computer of customers that I think are exploiting a bug in our billing system to get a lower price, print out that list and assign it to someone to investigate and fix the bug if it exists.
No, you have a valid reason to not share that, as long as you remove the PII once you’re done.
> leaves a voice mail where they include "my new credit card number is <xxx> with security code <yyy> and expiration date <zzz>", that's supposed to show up in their GDPR data.
If you’re deleting voicemails as you address them you’re fine, you won’t need to include this just because you didn’t get round to deleting it yet.
Again, context. I’m bored of explaining it to you like a toddler so I’ll just tell you to reread my comments very slowly and figure it out.
> GDPR is drafted by EU. They went way too far, and made it imcompatible with local laws!
This is just a nonsensical statement. GDPR has been in force for 7 years. You haven’t given an example of where it changes, because it fundamentally hasn’t.
Look, I don’t think English is your first language, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it’s getting really tiring having to explain basic things like “context” to you. I’m obviously meaning in the context of data governance. I’m accusing you of selling customer data to unscrupulous characters, to be precise.
> You obviously have no idea how business here works! Some gov offical will tell you to delete data for GDPR. Some other gov offical will ask for the same data latter, to prove tax records or people complied with vacine mandates! You get fined from both sides!
Either you’re bullshitting me or you live in Eastern Europe and need to give kickbacks to stay in business. If the latter, that’s not the GDPR’s fault. It’s the fault of your government for not being able to draft law.
> Every two years there is a big law reform of some area, while other areas with conflicting laws are still in effects.
That’s not the GDPR, that’s your country having a poor grasp of how to make law. It’s a different problem and I’d recommend either lobbying your local representative or just leave to a sane country which will let you do business.
I never said anything about drugs. I’m talking about doing illegal things with people’s data.
> And than you get different offical, with different opinion. Their advice have same weight as weather forecast!
If you’re getting audited this often you are DEFINITELY playing fast and loose with the rules. I have no sympathy for you.
> Yet more extra work!
If “customer asks me to update my records on them, so I do it,” is too much work then you really shouldn’t be in the business that requires it.
> Sounds like work for extra GDPR officer!
Or you just ask “what do I need to do?” The official tells you, you do it, they say “thank you.”
Seriously, all your answers here tell me you’re trying to do some shady shit and not even making money from it. If you were a simple retailer, as your original post implied, you would not be worried about the complexity of handling GDPR.
No it’s not. If you’re running an online store, compliance is pretty straightforward. Most of the PII you collect has a good reason: payment, fulfilment, fraud prevention, etc. so you don’t need consent for that.
If you’re collecting marketing data, you need to ensure it’s clear that you’re using it for that and keep your records accurate if you’re informed they changed.
For store analytics, your cookie banner covers you, the major players all integrate into standard tools, and they keep their compliance up to date, so you’re fine there.
Small mistakes are very much not punished. Your country’s Data Commissioner equivalent will want to see you try to be compliant first. You’re only going to get put out of business on a first offence if you’re taking the piss. I guarantee any example you provide me as evidence will be exactly that, but feel free to try.
Was it a PITA? Sometimes, yes.
Was it stressful having a conversation with Legal to determine whether we had a PII leak under the GDPR terms that would mean we had to reach out to customers? Definitely.
But you know what? That’s the cost of doing business. The outcome for EU citizens was that their data is in a better place than it otherwise would have been. And that’s a good thing.
You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.
Once you've done that, think about the analogy you want to draw and ask it. Because your current analogy is fucking idiotic.