UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

The carrier is leaking?

HMS Queen Elizabeth, which cost £3.1 billion, has been taking on 200 litres of water an hour because of a faulty seal.

Those damn seals, I supported banning clubbing them and look what they do.

[HMS Barham]

An ingress of 5 tonnes of water per day to a 70,000 tonne ship is not "leaking like crazy". At that rate if no one does anything she should sink in about ten to twenty years.

[HMS Barham]

I didn't say that at all.

You literally ceded exactly that.

I said leftists thought leftism was positive.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The carrier is leaking?

HMS Queen Elizabeth, which cost £3.1 billion, has been taking on 200 litres of water an hour because of a faulty seal.

That's like a gallon a minute, which is the output of one whole faucet left on unattended

[Vassenor]

HMS Queen Elizabeth, which cost £3.1 billion, has been taking on 200 litres of water an hour because of a faulty seal.

That's like a gallon a minute, which is the output of one whole faucet left on unattended

And the MoD has stated it is not affecting operations.

[Ifreann]

The carrier is leaking?

HMS Queen Elizabeth, which cost £3.1 billion, has been taking on 200 litres of water an hour because of a faulty seal.

Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves

[Souseiseki]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bbfc-proposed-to-enforce-age-verification-of-online-pornography

so turns out the BBFC is going to be out national censor

woo!

"The government should direct and control everything."

"No I didn't mean that!"

*picture of child pushing stick into own bike wheel*

oof, you got us.

[Ostroeuropa]

On the subject of government overreach, I'm pretty sure I shifted a few degrees to the right today after having to redo a bunch of policies for a charity I volunteer at. (You know when I disappear for a few hours? Charity work. If it's longer than 5 hours, it's me drinking. Sometimes gaming.)

Boss sat to the left of me occasionally disappearing to do some shit, me sat there, having to work my way through typing and updating the policies.

There's some absolutely cracking regulations.

Some ones that make at least some sense;

"Hey, do you keep employer insurance liability certificates?"

"They send new ones every year."

"You're supposed to keep them for 40 years. Says so here. I'm betting because injuries might take years to manifest, and a certificate from the current year won't necessarily prove you were insured at the time of the injury. Also, who is the data protection officer?"

"Oh. And the what?"

"The data protection officer. There's supposed to be one appointed to be in charge of all the data protection."

"Me, I suppose."

"I'll put your name down then."

(10 minutes later.)

"Who is the company we hire to dispose of paperwork?"

"We don't have one..."

"In order to comply, we've got to hire a specialized company that destroys paperwork and provides certificates of that destruction which can be used in our defense in the event of lawsuit."

"We don't do that."

"I know. It's probably fine, most of the data we handle isn't dangerous. It just means if we do get sued on data grounds for some reason, lack of compliance elsewhere will stack the evidence in favor of the argument we were negligent. But i'm sure it'll be fine."

"Okay."

"You're SURE you want to be the data protection officer?"

(20 minutes later, into health and safety.)

"Do you regularly inform parents that the refrigerator is running?"

"What? *laughs*"

*deadpan*
"You're supposed to check the refrigerator temperature once a day at opening and again at closing, and inform parents it is up to standards."

"You're joking."

"Says so right here."

Rinse repeat for practically every regulation.

The fridge one still has me laughing. I think that parliament might be trolls. The post makes me sound smart, but my boss is smarter than me probably. It's just that I'm reading the regulations as i'm typing them.

[The Archregimancy]

"You're supposed to keep them for 40 years. Says so here. I'm betting because injuries might take years to manifest, and a certificate from the current year won't necessarily prove you were insured at the time of the injury. Also, who is the data protection officer?"

"Oh. And the what?"

"The data protection officer. There's supposed to be one appointed to be in charge of all the data protection."

"Me, I suppose."

"I'll put your name down then."

Please, Ostro, don't allow yourself to be named as the data protection officer. You're a volunteer, not staff.

While it might depend on the data being processed, I don't think it's safe for either you or the charity you volunteer for to have a volunteer named as the data protection officer for a set of data that might have legal ramifications under the incoming GDPR regulations, which will replace the 1998 data protection regulations in spring of next year.

Charities across the country are country are having to make significant adjustments to their approach to data protection in light of GDPR, which is an EU regulation that's being separately written into UK law. I'm knee-deep in data protection right now as a result of my day job running the heritage service of one of the UK's largest charities; heritage collections have specific exemptions under the 1998 act and GDPR, but most other data sets don't.

Becoming a formally named data protection officer for a specific data set could have legal implications. At the very least, please have a look at the Information Commissioner's Office guide to GDPR.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... tion-gdpr/

But really, you should insist that this role be held by staff, not by an unpaid volunteer.

TG me if you want any further advice; it's probably best to take this off the forum if the discussion becomes more detailed.

[The Blaatschapen]

"You're supposed to keep them for 40 years. Says so here. I'm betting because injuries might take years to manifest, and a certificate from the current year won't necessarily prove you were insured at the time of the injury. Also, who is the data protection officer?"

"Oh. And the what?"

"The data protection officer. There's supposed to be one appointed to be in charge of all the data protection."

"Me, I suppose."

"I'll put your name down then."

Please, Ostro, don't allow yourself to be named as the data protection officer. You're a volunteer, not staff.

While it might depend on the data being processed, I don't think it's safe for either you or the charity you volunteer for to have a volunteer named as the data protection officer for a set of data that might have legal ramifications under the incoming GDPR regulations, which will replace the 1998 data protection regulations in spring of next year.

Charities across the country are country are having to make significant adjustments to their approach to data protection in light of GDPR, which is an EU regulation that's being separately written into UK law. I'm knee-deep in data protection right now as a result of my day job running the heritage service of one of the UK's largest charities; heritage collections have specific exemptions under the 1998 act and GDPR, but most other data sets don't.

Becoming a formally named data protection officer for a specific data set could have legal implications. At the very least, please have a look at the Information Commissioner's Office guide to GDPR.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... tion-gdpr/

But really, you should insist that this role be held by staff, not by an unpaid volunteer.

TG me if you want any further advice; it's probably best to take this off the forum if the discussion becomes more detailed.

Heh, you're also into the gdpr stuff

[Ostroeuropa]

"You're supposed to keep them for 40 years. Says so here. I'm betting because injuries might take years to manifest, and a certificate from the current year won't necessarily prove you were insured at the time of the injury. Also, who is the data protection officer?"

"Oh. And the what?"

"The data protection officer. There's supposed to be one appointed to be in charge of all the data protection."

"Me, I suppose."

"I'll put your name down then."

Please, Ostro, don't allow yourself to be named as the data protection officer. You're a volunteer, not staff.

While it might depend on the data being processed, I don't think it's safe for either you or the charity you volunteer for to have a volunteer named as the data protection officer for a set of data that might have legal ramifications under the incoming GDPR regulations, which will replace the 1998 data protection regulations in spring of next year.

Charities across the country are country are having to make significant adjustments to their approach to data protection in light of GDPR, which is an EU regulation that's being separately written into UK law. I'm knee-deep in data protection right now as a result of my day job running the heritage service of one of the UK's largest charities; heritage collections have specific exemptions under the 1998 act and GDPR, but most other data sets don't.

Becoming a formally named data protection officer for a specific data set could have legal implications. At the very least, please have a look at the Information Commissioner's Office guide to GDPR.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... tion-gdpr/

But really, you should insist that this role be held by staff, not by an unpaid volunteer.

TG me if you want any further advice; it's probably best to take this off the forum if the discussion becomes more detailed.

Thanks Arch, but that was the paid staff boss saying they'd do it, should have noted who was speaking. (I'm 1, she's 2.) I'm aware of the implications of being named data protection officer, it's why I quipped later in the discussion about whether they were sure they wanted the role.

We SHOULD be fine, as far as I can tell nothing about our data is dangerous save for perhaps the postcodes and addresses which could be sold on to third parties to mail them crap with, but there's little chance of that happening. Either way, fat chance i'm taking the role. For one thing, I suspect forcing everyone to read the data protection regulations would make me unpopular. It's not my problem, i'm just typing the policies.

The changes explains why I was suddenly asked to update a bunch of policies. I wasn't aware.

[The Archregimancy]

Heh, you're also into the gdpr stuff

I have no choice.

It has serious implications for the management of heritage collections since the heritage exemptions aren't written into the EU regulations. The EU regulations instead give the individual national governments the right to decide whether to grant exemptions for the processing and retention of heritage collections held for research purposes.

As a result, the UK heritage sector has been lobbying the government fairly hard to ensure that our exemptions moving forward are at least as robust as the existing exemptions in the 1998 UK act.

However, we do need to be GDPR compliant for records that are about our visitors and donors (as opposed to records that form an inherent part of the heritage asset).

The particular issue for Ostro, however, is that the UK charity sector will be brought under far stricter regulation under the incoming GDPR regulations as was the case with the 1998 act. I would strongly advise him to reconsider his decision to be named a data protection officer unless the full implications have been discussed with the individual managing the volunteers at the charity. The head of information governance at that charity may also have concerns about volunteers being named as data protection officers, particularly if this has been done without any attempt to explain the potential legal ramifications of the role.

Edit:

I see that I've misunderstood Ostro's role; my apologies.

[Ostroeuropa]

Edit:

I see that I've misunderstood Ostro's role; my apologies.

Hey no worries, it's good for everyone to know. I wasn't clear anyway. Thanks for looking out for me.

[Ostroeuropa]

Heh, you're also into the gdpr stuff

I have no choice.

It has serious implications for the management of heritage collections since the heritage exemptions aren't written into the EU regulations. The EU regulations instead give the individual national governments the right to decide whether to grant exemptions for the processing and retention of heritage collections held for research purposes.

As a result, the UK heritage sector has been lobbying the government fairly hard to ensure that our exemptions moving forward are at least as robust as the existing exemptions in the 1998 UK act.

However, we do need to be GDPR compliant for records that are about our visitors and donors (as opposed to records that form an inherent part of the heritage asset).

The particular issue for Ostro, however, is that the UK charity sector will be brought under far stricter regulation under the incoming GDPR regulations as was the case with the 1998 act. I would strongly advise him to reconsider his decision to be named a data protection officer unless the full implications have been discussed with the individual managing the volunteers at the charity. The head of information governance at that charity may also have concerns about volunteers being named as data protection officers, particularly if this has been done without any attempt to explain the potential legal ramifications of the role.

Edit:

I see that I've misunderstood Ostro's role; my apologies.

What's your position on it then?
Should the standards be made more strict, charities exempt, etc? You seem to know a fair bit about it.

I know our place takes the child welfare regulations very seriously (Including sending data to CSSIW where required). Health and safety mostly with the recording of stuff (though the bit regulating food storage is laughable when we basically just have milk, tea, coffee, cola, and chocolate bars.).

EDIT:
Thinking about it, i'm the closest thing to an IT guy they have, and I know fuck all about IT, and the bare minimum about data protection. Most of these people are care workers and such. Expecting them to be able to do what is essentially a second part time job on top of that is unreasonable, and not every charity will have access to someone qualified or willing to become qualified. Moreover, IT as a field doesn't pay particularly well (at least, at the lower end), and they may balk at the idea of doing shit for free when they're struggling to keep their head above water. It could represent an extra cost on charities that many cannot afford to bare, or leave them floundering in search of someone who understands data protection.
This may shift into less of a problem over time as younger generations replace older ones.

It would make more sense to have tiered levels of data protection, maybe, with certain data requiring more stringent regulation and other forms of data less so.

[The Archregimancy]

What's your position on it then?
Should the standards be made more strict, charities exempt, etc? You seem to know a fair bit about it.

I need to be exceptionally careful about what I say here. My own area of specialisation - heritage assets - is fairly niche, and I don't want to provide anything that could be read as binding recommendation on other types of data. But heritage assets have to be exempt to some degree; it's not as if I can e-mail someone from the 19th century and ask them to provide consent for the use of their photograph and personal possessions in a museum display.

What I can say is that all UK charities should make sure that they have an information governance lead who's working with the charity to ensure compliance with GDPR. The IG lead should be offering advice to all department heads/managers (depending on the scale of the charity)

Don't assume that any data are 'safe' - even apparently harmless data like addresses of past donors to a charity should only be held moving forward with the (written) consent of the donor. This is where charities are going to be seriously exposed transitioning between the 1998 act and GDPR.

[The Blaatschapen]

Heh, you're also into the gdpr stuff

I have no choice.

It has serious implications for the management of heritage collections since the heritage exemptions aren't written into the EU regulations. The EU regulations instead give the individual national governments the right to decide whether to grant exemptions for the processing and retention of heritage collections held for research purposes.

As a result, the UK heritage sector has been lobbying the government fairly hard to ensure that our exemptions moving forward are at least as robust as the existing exemptions in the 1998 UK act.

However, we do need to be GDPR compliant for records that are about our visitors and donors (as opposed to records that form an inherent part of the heritage asset).

The particular issue for Ostro, however, is that the UK charity sector will be brought under far stricter regulation under the incoming GDPR regulations as was the case with the 1998 act. I would strongly advise him to reconsider his decision to be named a data protection officer unless the full implications have been discussed with the individual managing the volunteers at the charity. The head of information governance at that charity may also have concerns about volunteers being named as data protection officers, particularly if this has been done without any attempt to explain the potential legal ramifications of the role.

Edit:

I see that I've misunderstood Ostro's role; my apologies.

I was actually in a short discussion with Eluvatar and gdpr related to NS. I was planning to send a GHR about it soon (as soon as I have a better understanding of some aspects myself). But it seems that NS has its own expert already

[Questers]

UK feminism and sometimes politics thread 7

Also lol that expensive carrier is leaking like crazy

It's an extremely cheap carrier, actually. The air group is approximately as expensive as the vessel itself.

[Val Halla]

The UK didn't support America on that Jerusalem thing right?

[Ifreann]

The UK didn't support America on that Jerusalem thing right?

You voted for the resolution, yes. So did we. High five!

[Okolastan]

The UK didn't support America on that Jerusalem thing right?

You voted for the resolution, yes. So did we. High five!

The Jews will be cross

[Dooom35796821595]

You voted for the resolution, yes. So did we. High five!

The Jews will be cross

You mean the Isralies, and what are they going to do, join Trump in his little tantrum?

[Vassenor]

The Jews will be cross

You mean the Isralies, and what are they going to do, join Trump in his little tantrum?

But I thought not doing whatever the hell the Israeli government wants was anti-Semitic. Or is that just when politicians the commentator in question doesn't like do it?

[Dooom35796821595]

You mean the Isralies, and what are they going to do, join Trump in his little tantrum?

But I thought not doing whatever the hell the Israeli government wants was anti-Semitic. Or is that just when politicians the commentator in question doesn't like do it?

Well if it is, then Israil is in trouble, look at that vote, all green and yellow, the only red coming from the countries the USA could bully to change their votes.

[Ifreann]

But I thought not doing whatever the hell the Israeli government wants was anti-Semitic. Or is that just when politicians the commentator in question doesn't like do it?

Well if it is, then Israil is in trouble, look at that vote all red and yellow, the only green coming from the countries the USA could bully to change their votes.

wat

[Dooom35796821595]

Well if it is, then Israil is in trouble, look at that vote all red and yellow, the only green coming from the countries the USA could bully to change their votes.

wat

Whoops, swapped the red and green.