Angry Brexiteers contact Dutch bike parts website that stopped shipping to the UK; Nail trap found on popular MTB trail; Beryl Burton mural graffitied; Cycling can improve your chances of employment by 12%; Pro cycling's baby boom + more on the live blog

In terms of GDPR protecting EU nationals - I was thinking of the scenario when an EU national goes on holiday to a non-EU country and deals with a local business: GDPR would be irrelevant and only the local laws would apply.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Isn't he breaching the rules on GDPR by including all the email addresses on the Twitter Pics?
(Some are fake but some are not)

An email address doesn't often identify an individual by itself (unless it's something like firstname.lastname [at] smallcompany.com) so GDPR wouldn't be applicable.

Quote:

Under GDPR, email addresses are considered confidential and must be used and stored within strict privacy and security guidelines.

And there is at least three there which fall under identifying the individual and their address. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Quote:

Under GDPR, email addresses are considered confidential and must be used and stored within strict privacy and security guidelines.

And there is at least three there which fall under identifying the individual and their address.

Was french [at] french.com one of those?

Nope, I was thinking the first three. Might be Gmail or hotmail etc but one is Blueyonder as well which old virgin mail and I would be surprised is not his own. 

TBH I'm not actually fussed by them being exposed as potential A-holes attacking him without full details, however I don't want Bike Bits to be caught out and fined because he was showing them to be A-holes. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Nope, I was thinking the first three. Might be Gmail or hotmail etc but one is Blueyonder as well which old virgin mail and I would be surprised is not his own. 

TBH I'm not actually fussed by them being exposed as potential A-holes attacking him without full details, however I don't want Bike Bits to be caught out and fined because he was showing them to be A-holes. 

That's the thing though, with laws protecting individual privacy, you don't get to decide who is and isn't protected.

If someone is concerned about an email address being made public, it's trivial to set up a throwaway email address and use that instead. Personally, I don't have an issue with an email address being leaked if it doesn't have any other identifying personal info.

Robb D touched on it but the annoying TOS that happens when you go onto web sites or go onto these contact apps state the rules on what they will be using the info for and promising to be resonsible with the data. Now I doubt BikeBits have in their rules or even that GDPR allow "them to be published on Twitter" in the TOS. 

I agree with you that if the person is concerned, they can use throwaways and several on there have done that. But other people are not as net savvy and email addresses are normally one half of username/ password combo, hence the reason for extra protection

However my main concern is someone reports Bike Bits on this and he is hit with a fine because it appears he also isn't as net savvy to obfuscate the emails before posting.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

However my main concern is someone reports Bike Bits on this and he is hit with a fine because it appears he also isn't as net savvy to obfuscate the emails before posting.

He is "net savvy" enough to run an international online retail business and publish an online blog. I think he knows which buttons to press.

hawkinspeter wrote:

An email address doesn't often identify an individual by itself (unless it's something like firstname.lastname [at] smallcompany.com) so GDPR wouldn't be applicable.

Yes, it absolutely would.  e-mail addresses, whether personal or work, are personal data under GDPR and must be protected.

alexls wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

An email address doesn't often identify an individual by itself (unless it's something like firstname.lastname [at] smallcompany.com) so GDPR wouldn't be applicable.

Yes, it absolutely would.  e-mail addresses, whether personal or work, are personal data under GDPR and must be protected.

Sorry, you're right - I sit corrected. I'm too used to thinking of emails as being like postcards - you're not always guaranteed that every link in an email delivery chain will be using encryption so the email address is quite often public in the same sense that a house address is public information.

The definition of "personal data" still requires that the data should be sufficient to identify a specific individual, so while email addresses can be personal data, being an email address does not automatically make it personal data. 

This would assume that their isn't a clause in the contact details stating that email addresses etc can be shared publically and that by contacting you are agreeing to these terms.

Lots of misunderstandings of GDPR on this thread.

TL;DR - move along nothing to see here. Zero chance of any GDPR action arising.

1. Its designed to protect Europeans personal data.
2. The UK is not in Europe but its still a potential breach of the UK Data Protection Act which was the GDPR enabling act in UK law.
3. Though a thin trade agreement was signed no Data Adequacy agreement has been determined between the EU and the UK as to whether the Data Protection Act is sufficient on its own to ensure equivalency with GDPR . In theory it should be, in practise both the Law and the Processes by which those laws are enforced have to be deemed adequate and the UK is still in the process of convincing the EU on the process part.
4. So the users whose emails are shown would have to make a complaint, and probably have it bounced back and forth between the ICO (UK) and the Dutch Data Privacy Office.
5. Though email addresses are personal data they aren't particularly sensitive elements, and that together with the tiny volume plus the murky Data Projection relationship between the EU and UK makes it effectively zero that any enforcement activity would occur from this
6. In the vanishingly small likelyhood that the ICO actually issued a fine, it effectively has lost any ability to enforce a fine on a Dutch company that doesnt want to trade with the UK anymore.

"The UK is not in Europe but its still a potential breach of the UK Data Protection Act which was the GDPR enabling act in UK law." 

If that's the case, then were we told porky pies about those nasty unelected EU bureaucrat type folks imposing laws on us? 

Of course we were told massive porkies.  Because Lying Brexiting liars are gonna lie, or are believing the arch-liars and do the job of spreading their misinformation for them. 

AFAIK 99% of EU rules have to have local enabling legislation in the individual countries.   There have even been instances where a country has been hauled up by the EU for writing the implementing law wrongly/weakly.  In the main the EU leaves it up to the country to determine how to comply with the spirit and intent of their rules, except where its mandated by treaty or EU processes.  Those rules are generally drawn up by commitees containing a respresentative of each country and approved both by the EU comission and the EU parliament.

Any brexiteer telling you we didnt have control was a lying liar.  The control exerted was just expressed in different ways than electing a MP.   Also lets not forget that if your preferred candidate for a UK or regional MP doesnt get in or is in the opposition you have effectively no control either.

The "taking back control" was just another con-job slogan just like everything else from Vote Leave.

Now I'm doubly depressed because of remembering the above and that this is on page 3 of a Live blog comment.

So far we've banned pulse fishing, abolished the tampon tax and announced a ban on live animal exports.

Not bad for the first week.

Then there are the trade negotiations with multiple countries, the massive overhaul of agricultural subsidies, the planned free ports etc.

None of those things were immediately possible in the EU (pulse fishing will soon be banned by the EU admittedly).

If we can now do multiple things we couldn't do as an EU member only a bare faced liar would claim that we didn't have more control.

Re Tampon Tax:Are they still supporting the womens charities they were using it for in the end?

Edit: And as for Pulse fishing, as France has already banned it, why did we wait until after we left the EU? Was that just to save something up for the press releases?

I don't know what they're planning to do with the money now.

I didn't know that France had already banned pulse fishing but the overall point stands.

If we're able to do things now that we were previously unable to do then we clearly have more control.

Rich_cb wrote:

So far we've banned pulse fishing, abolished the tampon tax and announced a ban on live animal exports.

Not bad for the first week.

Then there are the trade negotiations with multiple countries, the massive overhaul of agricultural subsidies, the planned free ports etc.

None of those things were immediately possible in the EU (pulse fishing will soon be banned by the EU admittedly).

If we can now do multiple things we couldn't do as an EU member only a bare faced liar would claim that we didn't have more control.

You make Secret Squirrel's point for him.

France and Belgium have already banned pulse fishing, so we clearly didn't need to leave the EU to do so. It's almost as if the government delayed banning pulse fishing in order to fool the gullible that it was a Brexit benefit.

The Tories voted against an amendment in 2015, that would have allowed us to abolish the tampon tax, following engagement with the EU. In any case, the EU is in the process of abolishing the tampon tax.

So we're left with live animal exports. Hardly compensation for losing freedom of movement, real time access to police databases, frictionless trade with our nearest neighbours, Erasmus etc etc etc.

Oh and we had freeports in the UK up until 2012, when the Tories allowed the legislation to lapse as they were pointless.

It boils down to whether or not we can control things now that we previously could not?

If we can then we have more control by definition.

Parliamentary amendments are often just political theatre and those theatrical amendments are largely meaningless. 'Engagement with the EU' on that issue had been going on for years and had achieved nothing of substance. We have now completely abolished the tax, something we were unable to do before.

EU Freeports are not in the same league as Freeports elsewhere, EU legislation essentially hamstrings them minimising their benefit to the economy.

This is from fullfact.org: "A 2005 paper from a UN body said: “The [European] Commission does allow the establishment of free zones within its territory but its definition of free zone is a very narrow one.”"

We directly control more now than we did whilst in the EU, that is indisputable and that was my point.