Thread by @CBridge_Chief

Finding #1. Looking at it, the only changes I see in the final report are in sentence structure, detailed citation of background documentation. Substantively this finding is unchanged. It's worded differently (and more forensically).

Finding #2: Again, there is a claim of substantial changes made by the Dept. Reading this, the change I see is inclusion of more detail and a clearer enumeration of the logical analysis that was undertaken. The actual conclusion is unchanged.

Finding #3: Again... I'm at a loss to see where the substantial difference is here. And the finding is pretty standard fare. I'll look at Depts argument later... (or tomorrow). The DPC has been consistent (and there is significant case law on #DataRetention).

I'll take a break from comparing the findings for a moment (the changes in length of documents are likely explained by the final report having more detailed layout and enumeration of things) because something niggles me...

The Dept are insisting that @DPCIreland has refused to meet them since the report came out. Looking at correspondence published by the Dept, we see a letter of the 22nd August from DPC to DEASP included, where DPC offers to meet in context of discussing implementation PLAN.

@DPCIreland Back to the findings. Findings 5 and 6...

Again... reading the words I can't see a substantive difference in the finding, other than a move from a "narrative" style to a tighter drafting style. I might be missing something, but the meaning and findings are the same.

Findings 7 and 8: Well, there's some small differences here. But they are entirely explicable by the fact that the DPC has combined some complementary findings around transparency and retention into a single finding. Finding 7 includes Finding 9. Finding 8 includes Finding 10.

So the "substantial changes" that include the dropping of findings are easily explained when you look at the final report and see that findings have been merged.

Finding 11: Again, this is one that is in the draft report that isn't in the final report. Personally, I'd have preferred it was kept called out as a seperate finding, but... it is a contravention of the same principle as at stake in Finding 8.

That's spooky!

Now, DEASP claims that @DPCIreland has added an entirely new finding in the final report. It would have been nice if they'd included that in this table as it would have made a powerful statement. But it's not.

@DPCIreland So, from the summary table of the findings we have learned:
1) @DPCIreland tightens up phrasing between draft and final.
2) @DPCIreland adds references that make word count longer
3) @DPCIreland merges findings that are common to specific legislation/principles for a logical read

@DPCIreland We haven't learned what the mystery additional finding is. It would have been nice to have that spelled out as clearly as the "dropped" findings.

So, what of the Depts rebuttals to DPC findings? I'll look at them tomorrow, but my initial pass through is that they are very light and repeat arguments we have heard before and don't get to the necessity and proportionality aspects of the legal basis. Also, some odd claims.