Global Data Protection White Paper

Most individual countries worldwide now have their own legal framework with respect to Data Protection and Direct Marketing. However, standards vary widely from country to country. In recent decades, a number of collective mandates have been initiated which attempt to standardise the treatment of data flows between countries, some more successfully than others. These are commonly referred to as there is ambiguity over how legally enforceable such initiatives are:

“The common feature of all these initiatives is that they are non-binding international instruments, or in international law parlance, soft law.”

(The EU Data Protection Directive: An Engine of a Global Regime, Michael D. Birnhack, 2008).

Company Net has drafted a Global Data Protection White Paper, the purpose of which is to set out the historical background to the emergence of these initiatives, and to summarise the current position which seems to favour the EU Data Protection Directive (and its associated directives, the EU Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications, and the EU Data Retention Directive) as the most dominant, and most stringent initiative worldwide. That said, there are still significant complexities and anomalies of the treatment of data even within EU member countries, even within the EU. This document assesses some of these complexities. You can view it at: Global Data Protection White Paper.

Plain English or Plain Crazy?

The Local Government Association’s push to outlaw certain words and phrases begs more questions than it answers, and will cause problems for suppliers.

Today, the Local Government Association published a list of 200 words which, it says, should not be used by Local Councils.  You can view the full list at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7949077.stm.

The LGA’s intention is perfectly understandable; they want to promote clear communication through the use of plain English.  After all, I don’t think there are many people who want phrases such as “Predictors of Beaconicity” trotted out, and less still who would have the vaguest clue what it actually means.

But from my company’s perspective (Company Net), as a supplier of software services to organisations which include Local Councils, the LGA’s latest mandate presents more than a few problems.   For a start, phrases such as “functionality”, “scoping”, “protocols”, “transactional”, “parameter” and “toolkit” are all outlawed, all of which are common parlance within the software development fraternity. 

In an operational sense (an area close to my heart), other phrases are on the hit-list.  I’m not allowed to talk about “resource allocation” any longer; the word “framework” is also banished.  But why stop there?  Why not ban methodologies as well?  “Outputs” are forbidden, but somewhat bizarrely, “inputs” are not.  Perhaps this suggests that that there was no “outcome” (another word for the scrap-heap), because the inputs were never “actioned” (and another).  No doubt the participants were too busy playing ‘buzzword bingo’ instead of getting on with the task in hand.

Buzzword Bingo

Perhaps we should be keeping such ‘geek-speak’ words and phrases to ourselves, and not unleashing them on the customer.  Personally, I have no problem with this.

However, where it becomes particularly problematic is in the conventional language of software delivery projects which is required in the “interface” (whoops, there’s another word on the hit-list) between the software consultancy and customer.  “Single point of contact” is now forbidden.  Show me a customer who doesn’t want a single point of contact?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Company Net likes to establish “partnerships” with its customers.  We strive to work through “collaboration”, to have “dialogue” with our customers.  All these words are forbidden.  In working through the “engagement” (another no-no), we have discussions about “priorities”, and we often seek to develop the software by “iterations”.  Well, not any more we don’t; not when we’re working with Local Government.

And heaven forbid, what happens when we may (very occasionally) deviate from plan?  The word “slippage” has been banned; its suggested replacement being “delay”.  Slippage is a far more evocative word.  It implies a significant element of the accidental or unintended, which in a project delivery sense is usually the case.  No-one intends to be late; whereas delays can be intentional.

Finally, there’s the issue of what we call our Local Government customers.  “Customers” is no longer an option; and “Clients” is a no-go area too.  Perhaps we should refer to our customers as “they who pay the bill” – in an effort to follow the Germanic model of concatenating several words within a single word to convey a precise and very definite meaning.  The often-referenced example of this method is the German word for ‘matchbox’ – ‘Streichholzschaechtelchen’.  This is derived from ‘Streich’ meaning rubbing, ‘holz’ meaning wood, ‘Schaechtel’ meaning box, and ‘chen’ meaning little.  But, on second thoughts, given that most non-German speakers struggle to even voice this word, perhaps this isn’t such a great idea.  Language needs to be communicable as well as understandable.

Aside from the linguistic considerations, there is also the matter of freedom of speech.  Who are the LGA to tell us what we can and can’t say? 

No-one wants to be stuck in a meeting where gobbledegook is the (dare I say it?) linguafranca.   But at the end of the day, it all comes down to semantics; the purpose of language is to make yourself understood.  If you are not understood, your language has failed you. 

With a few exceptions (does anyone know what “coterminosity” actually means, and why use “promulgate” when declare will suffice?), there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using most of the words on LGA’s banned list.  The proviso is that these should be used appropriately, and used to convey meaning and understanding with the bare minimum of extraneous explanation.  A “Level Playing Field” is a fantastic, evocative phrase which should be celebrated, not outlawed.  In three short words, it promotes instant understanding.  So, why use a paragraph when 3 words will suffice?  It’s all about the speaker and the listener being on the same wavelength.  And, for now, “wavelength” is a word which we are all free to use.