Blog

Slimme GDPR, domme meter

Nu iedereen begint te begrijpen dat het slimme van de ‘slimme’ meter alleen zit in de onvoorstelbare leugen van noodzaak van tweemaal per … doorgeven van uw individuele energieverbruik, omdat daarmee de capaciteit beter zou kunnen worden verdeeld, gemanaged en ingepland, terwijl dat slechts op wijkniveau zou hoeven worden bepaald – alsof het energiebedrijf op individueel niveau zou gaan throttelen als dat nodig zou zijn en alsof er remote controls op dat granulariteitsniveau beheerst zouden kunnen worden ..! –
Is er de GDPR, of AVG voor wie provinciaals denkt. Die veel strikter dan voorheen toeziet op doelbinding; het moet echt niet anders kunnen dan dat er inbreuk op de privacy wordt gedaan. En zie boven; op wijkniveau meten (en dat kost veel, héél veel minder meters, onderhoud, etc.!) is ruimschoots voldoende dus is de inbreuk op de privacy niet toegestaan. En voor de jaarafrekening is eenmaal per jaar doorgeven ook goed, als vanouds en dan is op papier (email, weet u wel) doorgeven ook goed.

Of is er een wettelijke taak? Ja, maar , de wettelijke taak van leveren van stabiele energie noodzaakt geenszins de privacy-inbreuk.
Of is er nóg een wettelijke taak, namelijk wietplantages opsporen ..? Dan was al voordat de sleepwet inging, járen ervoor, totale controle van alle individuele huishoudens aan de gang … Iedereen is Verdacht ..!

Andere argumenten of wettelijke taken? Neen, Géén. [Ongeldige argumenten schrappen we, tenslotte.]

Gaat de GDPR wat veranderen ..? Hey, dit is Nederland hè? Als het van de overheid en angehauchten komt, heerst volslagen wetteloosheid. Dus wat zijn de kansen …

[Boven de massa, lekker cosy; El Andaluz]

Too late, or not

So, today marks the 100 work days from 25-5-2018 mark. Not counting the umpteen bank and other holidays.
Wich means that

  • You’re (with) a large company: Not sorry to inform you; your GDPR program will fail. Per the above deadline, you will not have achieved enough. By far, not enough. Some plans, at most, and some paperwork. But not the end resulting detail minimum-level of data architecture, let alone pervasive improvements in set-up and management of actual, concrete, infosec. Reports notwithstanding, those are hyperfuzzy window dressing anyway.
  • You’re with an SME. Congratulations; when you start now, you can achieve compliance in time, without much stress. Since your environment is so properly tuned to the size of your business, all the above categories of work, can be done in quite limited time frames. But do start soon!
  • You’re in between. You’ll have some of the upside, but mostly the downsides of the above.

Gimme back the budget

What happens to the budget when some self-styled government authority flat-out refuses to carry out (part of) its assigned and entrusted [well…] task ..?
Withdraw, you would say, for at least the part that she (sic) got budget for and says to spend on that. If not the whole Board is to be fired for misconduct and insubordinance.

Of course, not in NL …

Not only Canadian

As you understand, that does not say ‘merely’, the ‘only’ is on purpose. That being the same as the lies that @transavia (Transavia, remember them?) came up with, when they:

  1. Let some pilot fly to a destination they knew would be more fervent in arresting him
  2. Told the passengers waiting there for the return flight that ‘there was something amiss with fueling’
  3. Did not have a fresh crew / pilot at hand; had to be flown in from NL after item 1 went down
  4. leading to a delay of something like 6 hours, that they should have been able to calculate, and communicate, beforehand ..!
  5. Supplied only a couple of lousy (value) vouchers, to but just a single sandwich per person/passenger, at an airport that literally almost completely closed down before the back-up crew arrived – those that didn’t redeem their vouchers in time, were left with junk food / bottled water (one item…) as their only options, and e.g., Customs, and other services, had gone home entirely.
  6. Never ever apologised (the ‘Sorry’ hinted at in the title) for the whole mess-up, lies and delay, or even debriefed on what actually went down or whatever, or duly! compensated. To the latter: I missed serious business opportunities because the next day, I wasn’t able to work as effectively as when I would have had a good night’s sleep… 5-figures damage.
  7. And no-one will expect them to clean up on the situation now the court case has settled and the new year has started.

Especially item 2, and item 6: Shame.

Oh wait, that’s why they fit in so well with AirFrance…

Exit 2018 1163

Asad day for all you aficinados of this blog. After some five years and about 1163 posts (you’ll see…; own, mostly with own pics), this is the last of the (work)daily update. Yes, I’ve managed. But will turn to more serious, somewhat-more long-form content so will stop the drivel. I will not post daily, but when I do … And I’ll intersperse with some margin notes posts. Per 1/1 these will have no picture, the long for ones will – just check the link-post’lets and you’ll see. In line with the season: Enjoy less frequent but more professional, beautiful fireworks.
Or be safe with your own fireworks. Else, stand candidate for the Darwin Awards, which is also OK with me especially if you’ve not appreciated my blog; excepting the few I care for ;-|

Now then …
[Some room available. Live and die to be worth it, or take a hike; Arlington]

Secrut law

Hey, does @iusmentis or anyone else out there in NL have a clue what this [dunno if there’s a Dunglish translation around somewhere] is about, what relevance this has to e.g., infosec, and/or the probable impact in the Information/IT side or organisations, or are we all just too busy with GDPR ..?
Just wanted to know. Saw it fly by and wondered why there weren’t any serious comment flurries.

Or is it because it all isn’t relevant ..? Or is just article 4 relevant ..? Is there no clue about due ‘protection’ (security) being required by the secret info holder or else ..? Is it just to protect whistleblowers under 4.2 ? Is 4.1 strengthening (or the reverse!) of the WOB ?

One thing’s for sure: The scare of fines, is … gone. Because they only have to be paid after any challenge in court, would have been settled in disfavour. Which of course may dragged on for literally decades (incl inflation, change of formal and practical policy), and also the Authority (to which a great many would add: quod non) will (hence) have to make very, very sure it has a case for fines in the first place; the far less potent other measures are, well, spoke-in-the-wheel’able.

Yes I still wonder, vis-à-vis the fly by night character of the fly by. And:
[How far does copyright on a beautiful design go? Asking for a friend this being my pic anyway; Valencia]

After 2018’s hypes, this

Already you thought you had enough on your plate, for 2018 qua predictions even when most will play out differently than stated? And though these ones are [as in: when you verify/falsify them in the near future, they will have become ‘are’] actually correct…
these will also play a role in 2018.

Yes, yes, in a much more fundamental way, and maybe in the mainstream media only per ill-understood sensational pastiche, but still it will certainly [same] augment the fuzz around quantum computing. That will, in the end, when made operational not be much of a shocker anymore. Too much dilution in the latter, to still make good on its supercalifragilisticexpealidocious claims. Too bad / good, depending on which side of the quantum-crypto-crackability wars you are – the latter not even mattering since this and this. And this in particular. What will the above mean in this respect?

[Edited to add: Oh and this just in. Relevant, on a nearer-future scale]

Leaving it there for you, to study and be prepared… plus:
[Fattened over the holiday season, you are ..? Shardless London it was, ‘is’ish]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord