Punchbag DPC may yet deliver
IT’S never unfashionable to beat up the Irish data protection commissioner. “Why hasn’t Ireland fined the big tech firms yet?” “What’s the point of GDPR with no big fines?”
“What would you expect from Ireland? They’re only interested in keeping the tech giants as big employers.”
And so on.
It’s been a running theme in chunks of the European data privacy industry, especially in German-speaking areas.
There was more last week, where the topic was tackled by the European desk at Politico. The underlying theme was familiar: the Irish DPC is perceived as being either too tardy, unmotivated or insufficiently resourced to take timely action against the tech giants for privacy breaches. Justice delayed is justice denied. And it is now “make or break” for the Irish regulatory body.
I’ve heard a different view in recent times from some privacy and industry professionals I respect.
Most of it boils down to a common thread — if the DPC is pulled along at the pace its critics crave, its decisions will have holes, lack certainty and will be far more likely to be appealed. While the body blow to Facebook or Google or Twitter would be satisfying from an optics perspective, it would be a hollow victory.
Those very companies may end up avoiding actual enforcement for years longer, while other industry players would look at proceedings and decide there was less merit in simply accepting the initial decision.
This is a criticism sometimes levelled against the British counterpart of the Irish data protection office, which has been accused of moving too quickly on some headline fines.
It’s very hard to prove or disprove this theory, as we haven’t yet had a major decision against a big tech player in Ireland, yet. Helen Dixon’s office has indicated the decisions are on the way fairly imminently. Even then, further consultation periods with the entities involved are still likely, even if only for a few weeks.
But for what it’s worth, the most senior privacy officials in the top tech companies privately say that the more methodical and comprehensive the paperwork, the less likely they are to appeal, even if the fine is a big one.
Cynics on this point are unlikely to accept such a theory. To them, corporate privacy chiefs are algorithmically-fuelled vampire capitalists who only seek to wring every last drop of blood from a process. Then again, these are the same commentators who have been arguing for almost 15 years that tech multinationals will leave Ireland any day now. And that they have no interest whatsoever in ‘the talent’, that it is purely an offshore tax play, a giant con.
In terms of what happens next, it does look very likely that the Irish DPC will issue at least one major fine this year. But maybe not because the mob is baying for it, but because the cases merit it.
Facebook works it out
FACEBOOK’S ‘remote working’ new deal is a fascinating one. You’ll get paid according to where you live.
Mark Zuckerberg says that up to around half of the company will be working from home permanently within five to 10 years.
But if you base yourself miles away from a pricey rental area, you’ll be paid less.
Seems fair, right?
Zuckerberg is dead serious about this, even though company executives here pointed out to me late last week that the move to start this won’t initially apply to Ireland’s near-5,000 Facebook workers. (So that huge office expansion in Dublin 4, with room for up to 10,000 people, is still on.)
But if it proves effective in the US, it can only be a matter of time before it’s introduced here.
Is it logical that two people working for the same company should be paid differently depending on where they rent or buy?
Remember, this pay differentiation will only apply to ‘remote’ workers, not ‘flexible’ workers (office some days, home other days) or workers who turn up normally to the central office.
Still, in Ireland it would effectively mean a company subsidy for living in Dublin 4 or 6.
Such things aren’t that unusual in some industries. The concept is established in London, for instance, where a whole swathe of white-collar workers get bumped up pay to allow for London rents.
But as a structural pay grade in a tech company, it’s a very interesting debut.
This is especially so because other companies will surely follow in Facebook’s footsteps.
Where firms like Zuckerberg’s and Sundar Pichai’s (Google) go, hundreds more traditional corporations follow.
Personally, I’m ambivalent about working from home: I like the physical distinction that a workplace brings. I also find that there’s energy in physical presence that is very hard to replicate remotely, no matter how high a resolution your Zoom call is.
And the cultural element of presence is underrated, too. Seasoned, experienced workers may be comfortable getting on with things, because they know what they need to do and how they need to interact with colleagues. But for younger ones, workflow culture can be essential. We all scoff at the peccadilloes and absurdities of some parts of office life, but it’s still mostly a productive environment.
And yet it is now clear that a very sizeable number of people are not only willing, but eager to work from home.
“I never want to see the office again,” is how a media colleague put it to me last week when I asked how he was getting on with work at home.
Maybe he’ll fancy a job in Facebook in a few years’ time.