Data protection has its pitfalls

I am, of course, referring to the much-lauded GDPR regulations, more commonly known as ‘data protection’. These regulations are obviously very much well-intended, to protect individuals from the misuse of their personal data/information from those who may be of a scurrilous nature. So far, so good, however we have created a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Anyone who is involved in any way with social, or sports, or charitable organisations will be only too aware of the vast amounts of work and time that has been taken up with the requirement for every person involved, in every organisation, in any way, no matter how infrequent or small to provide ‘specific and explicit’ permission for their data/details to be used, circulated, stored etc.

This vast amount of wasted time could be viewed as acceptable – a necessary evil if you like, to ensure personal security. Although I do find it strange, that if personal security is really a concern, why do most people use their name as an email address? But I digress – those who engage in social media (as well as Guernsey Press readers) will be aware of a full-page advert/article by a gentleman who is usually adorned with a hat. This advert reproduces an email and suggests that this email is unhelpful, inappropriate, interfering, and generally controlling in an underhand manner. Now of course for the publication of this email to ‘comply’ with the requirements of the GDPR regulations, means that the identity of the sender is ‘blacked out’ – redacted, withheld (all apart from the rather telling suffix of gov.gg).

Now here is the crux of the matter – the most unwanted of unintended consequences. The GDPR regulations provide a very handy shield or hiding place for the perpetrator, remember the uproar over the appointment of a ‘head of curriculum standards’? Remember what happened there?

Yes, that is right, the GDPR regulations provided a perfect reason to either redact incriminating evidence, or even better, not provide any evidence at all. Seriously, it beggars belief.

I passionately believe that these regulations need an urgent review to assess fitness for purpose. By all means, protect the innocent, but surely a line must be drawn before legislation serves to hide the miscreant. I also believe that the Scrutiny Management Committee needs to have actual powers, enshrined in law, so as to compel civil servants and elected people to provide full and complete evidence in any inquiry. The implementation of fully electronic, instantaneous recorded voting must, in my opinion, be a priority for all voting in the next Assembly. I fully accept that the cries of ‘pour’ and ‘contre’ taken ‘en voix’ are iconic and traditional, however in the 21st century these should be relegated to purely ceremonial occasions. A recorded vote taken via a role call gives your elected representatives the ability to vote according to how others have voted before them – hardly transparent, or open and honest.

Many people have labelled the last Assembly as the worst States ever. I honestly cannot see how the next Assembly can improve upon this without the implementation of what I see as essential safeguards which will assist the public to possibly regain some confidence in the people who are tasked with the running of our island.

PHIL LE BER