Almost 5 years into GDPR enforcement, the courts and the supervisory authorities have peddled through quite some decisions and more are expected while this description is being written.

It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole, where Peter Swire already talked about technological escalation wars back in 2012 when he quit the W3C DNT efforts.

While the ink is dry on the final text of the GDPR since May 2016, the same can not be said for the courts. They are busier than ever with respect to data protection litigation! (there hasn't been a lot before to be honest as the legal instruments weren't as adequate)

Moe sat down for a chat with privacy and GDPR expert Aurélie Pols to dive in to some of the questions that, at times, get treated as peripheral in the run-up to new regulations, but that seem like they are fairly fundamental when it comes to understanding the rationale and drivers behind those regulations: what does the Holocaust have to do with GDPR? Is GDPR something that was simply dreamed up in Europe, or are there roots in other countries (teaser: Eleanor Roosevelt). Is GDPR inherently anti-business? It's a quick chat but, hopefully, will give you some deeper perspective on the subject!

Why the increased merging of AdTech and MarTech is creating new types of (potential) harms; how the definitions of PII & pseudonymous data are evolving and why legislation is not lagging behind: it’s the technology people who can’t stop complaining while building rockets and self-driving cars!

A tale of caution about lack of transparency and rolling heads. Pragmatic Data Privacy take-aways for an era of Digital Entanglement and fluid Privacy legislation.