Privacy and GDPR

Apology and Corrections

It’s been brought to my attention today, partly by @MissIG_Geek and partly by @BekiHill of The Register, that the gdpr-info.eu site, recommended to me by a trusted associate as a searchable version of the original GDPR text, was not an entirely accurate reproduction of the regulation. Most differences were minor. I have now finished checking everything that I have published that referenced that site.

Because I always cross reference different sources to confirm correct regulatory interpretation I can confirm there was no impact on the accuracy of either commentary or advice published. However I still owe my readers an apology for not checking that site as a source more thoroughly. I go to great lengths to never knowingly mislead people and I place enormous value on the trust my readers and followers place in me.

I have been replacing links where necessary with links to the original regulation text. If I have missed something do let me know.

Categories:Privacy and GDPR

2 replies »

  1. Hello Sarah,
    this is Stefan from intersoft consulting. We have recently discovered your contribution and would like to comment on it.
    The GDPR has 99 articles and 173 recitals, all of which we have transferred individually from the PDF to the website. Of course we double-checked it and yet it can happen that an error creeps in.
    There are two points about your contribution that I do not agree with:
    1) Just because there are supposedly small mistakes in there, it does not mean that the whole project is bad. Even the largest news sites update their articles retrospectively. Mistakes can happen – we are only human.
    2) Why didn’t you communicate the mistakes? Instead, you accept that others work with mistakes.
    Imagine we would place a banner on our site that says that we found errors at infospectives.co.uk (without telling which ones) and therefore discourage all users from your site. We wouldn’t do that because it’s not fair.
    I would be pleased if you would comment and adapt the article accordingly. We are really interested in correcting our page and would like your feedback.
    Thank you very much.
    Stefan

    Like

    • Hi Stefan, you will see that I have amended the article and I appreciate the balanced tone of your comment. I cannot report errors to back up my statement because, as you say, the GDPR is a mammoth body of text and the content referred to in my posts did not have errors.

      My admittedly harsh original wording was provoked by trusted contacts warning me that there were some notable errors and calling out the risk of that directly invalidating or damaging credibility of my advice and, in turn, me as an advisor.

      As an independent consultant that is all I can rely upon to make a living. Hence the deep personal and professional frustration and concern. Couple that with having no reasonable way to quickly verify your content, part of the potentially far reaching impact, both on my site and on anyone I had directly or indirectly pointed to yours.

      I did struggle to understand how anyone could publish a something advertised as a direct copy of legal text without being 100% sure of accuracy due to the obvious far reaching implications of not doing so.

      Having said all this I wish to be fair. Hence the amendment on receipt of your comment.

      Like

Want to add to the discussion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s