Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
pays non-adéquat
English translation:
country without adequate (data) protection
Added to glossary by
Mpoma
Oct 2, 2019 15:02
4 yrs ago
14 viewers *
French term
pays non-adéquat
French to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
Company legalese to do with GDPR compliance.
"Pays adéquat :
Ensemble des pays tiers à l’UE qui présentent des garanties semblables au RGPD."
"Les transferts de données d’un pays présentant une législation relative à la protection des Données à Caractère Personnel adéquat vers un pays qui n’est pas établi dans un pays règlementé."
"Les transferts de données impliquant un pays qui n’est pas établi dans l’UE et un pays adéquat."
"Aucune donnée à Caractère Personnel ne doit être transférée vers un pays non-adéquat tant qu’il n’est pas établi que le destinataire des données est lié : ..."
I do wish laywers wouldn't improvise. It is the protection which is meant to be "adéquate", not the country.
Is it acceptable to use the phrase "inadequate country" in connection with the GDPR terminology, which is distinctly stilted in English? Googling the phrase does yield a few hits, and by this yardstick the USA, for example, is described thus.
If not, what? "Country without adequate protection"?
"Pays adéquat :
Ensemble des pays tiers à l’UE qui présentent des garanties semblables au RGPD."
"Les transferts de données d’un pays présentant une législation relative à la protection des Données à Caractère Personnel adéquat vers un pays qui n’est pas établi dans un pays règlementé."
"Les transferts de données impliquant un pays qui n’est pas établi dans l’UE et un pays adéquat."
"Aucune donnée à Caractère Personnel ne doit être transférée vers un pays non-adéquat tant qu’il n’est pas établi que le destinataire des données est lié : ..."
I do wish laywers wouldn't improvise. It is the protection which is meant to be "adéquate", not the country.
Is it acceptable to use the phrase "inadequate country" in connection with the GDPR terminology, which is distinctly stilted in English? Googling the phrase does yield a few hits, and by this yardstick the USA, for example, is described thus.
If not, what? "Country without adequate protection"?
Proposed translations
(English)
References
| ce qu'en dit Reverso |
mchd
|
Change log
Oct 4, 2019 11:42: SafeTex Created KOG entry
Oct 4, 2019 11:49: Mpoma changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/1405669">SafeTex's</a> old entry - "pays non-adéquat"" to ""country with inadequate (data) protection""
Oct 4, 2019 11:58: Mpoma changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/39459">Mpoma's</a> old entry - "pays non-adéquat"" to ""country without adequate (data) protection""
Oct 4, 2019 12:01: Mpoma changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/39459">Mpoma's</a> old entry - "pays non-adéquat"" to ""country without adequate (data) protection""
Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:
Non-PRO (1): Yvonne Gallagher
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
7 hrs
Selected
country with inadequate protection
Hello all
I agree with Mpoma and his own suggestion to his question (country without adequate protection) but to stay with the negative in the French, (NON-adequate), I suggest the above.
Straightforward English without using terms that are stilted in English and no suggestion that the country is "non-adequate" cos it is as Mpoma says the protection that is lacking.
Regards
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2019-10-03 03:31:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: Please note the option suggested by Ph_B in his agree entry: "Country with inadequate DATA protection" which I did consider actually.
I agree with Mpoma and his own suggestion to his question (country without adequate protection) but to stay with the negative in the French, (NON-adequate), I suggest the above.
Straightforward English without using terms that are stilted in English and no suggestion that the country is "non-adequate" cos it is as Mpoma says the protection that is lacking.
Regards
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2019-10-03 03:31:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Asker: Please note the option suggested by Ph_B in his agree entry: "Country with inadequate DATA protection" which I did consider actually.
Note from asker:
| philgoddard's comment is interesting, though personally I'd say it merits a "neutral" rather than a "disagree". I'm not sure it is shorthand, though: when shorthand transfers an attribute from one noun to another it can be misleading, and in this case appears at the least sloppy. Sloppy in a legal text ain't good. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Ph_B (X)
: See discussion: "so your choice appears to be "inadequate country" to reflect the French, but which you don't like, or an explanation in good English". I wld add: "...inadequate data protection".
3 hrs
|
|
Thanks Ph_B. I actually did think about adding "data" as you suggest. It is indeed an option
|
|
| agree |
Sandra & Kenneth Grossman
: This document is probably intended for their staff. "Inadequate/adequate country" sounds weird and possibly funny to in non-legalese. I would use "...inadequate data protection", which fully conveys the meaning of the procedure for all purposes
6 hrs
|
|
thanks. I agree with the optional addition of the word data
|
|
| disagree |
philgoddard
: The whole point of the French phrase is that it's shorthand. You've spelled it out in full.//Because it doesn't say protection.
9 hrs
|
|
The text does not abound with shorthand so why do you think this one phrase is intentional shorthand?
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
: I would add 'data'
9 hrs
|
|
thanks. that does seem to be the general opinion to add the word "data"
|
|
| disagree |
Eliza Hall
: There is no creative license when doing legal translations. To impose our views on what should've been written, instead of translating what was written, is bad translation. See discussion.
15 hrs
|
|
Here we go, here we go, here we go :)
|
|
| disagree |
Daryo
: there is no point rewriting definitions to add what is anyway obvious from the context and thus rightly omitted in the ST//also, to make it really explicit:3rd countries considered by the EU commission to offer adequate protection for personal data
23 hrs
|
3 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "I go for this, or "country without adequate protection" (my own original suggestion, and perhaps slightly more objective-sounding)"
+2
1 hr
Eliza Hall
United States
United States
Native in English
Specializes in field
United States
Lawyer-Translator-Certified Interpreter
Native in: English (Variants: Scottish, Canadian, Irish, British, UK, US)
Works in: French to English, English to French
Related KudoZ points
:
145
Non-adequate country
The term you're translating is a defined term in the legal contract. The lawyers will have chosen that exact term for specific reasons that we may not be aware of (there may be existing rules, judicial decisions, etc., that used the terms "pays adéquat/non-adéquat" in this sense, so the lawyers are making it absolutely clear that this contract refers to that body of law).
I don't know what the reason for their wording is, but I guarantee you, as a lawyer, that the lawyers did not "improvise."
I don't know what the reason for their wording is, but I guarantee you, as a lawyer, that the lawyers did not "improvise."
Note from asker:
| Haha. OK. Well someone did, if not these particular lawyers. But yes, this term "non-adequate" appears to be the adjective of choice. Personally I would call this a barbaric or awkward adjective: the opposite of adequate is inadequate. But whichever jurist it was who decided that you could/should use the term "adequate country" also inevitably realised the absurdity (not necessarily the inaccuracy) of the term "inadequate country" (e.g. when applied to the USA or, very shortly perhaps, the UK). |
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Ph_B (X)
: Even if source = F legalese (doubtful), wld be a poor ex. of it (non-adéquat certainly not a F legal term). No reason to make up wrds in E – surely, E legalese is rich enough, e.g. « inadequate », assuming it means anything in context. Brackets OK.
10 mins
|
|
Because what Mpoma posted is the definition ("Pays adéquat: Ensemble des pays..." blabla). If a contract sets forth a definition of a term, that is a defined term in the contract. Pardon the slightly circular argument but I'm not sure how else to respond.
|
|
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: In the specific context, this really doesn't work without an addition// what I mean is that as used here it is specific to the EU so it isn't "general", it has a specific meaning relating to the EU and the English version is not "non adequate country"
22 mins
|
|
I don't see what you mean. The context is a definition: Term means blablabla. When the term itself is expressly defined in the document, why would you need any "addition"?
|
|
| agree |
philgoddard
: This is the correct answer. http://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/risk/articles/cyber-sec...
15 hrs
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
| disagree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: this is gibberish/nonsense and touting it as "legalese" does not make it any better as ENGLISH. How is a country "(in)adequate"? The country has inadequate data-protection measures in place//oh please! Get off your high horse!
22 hrs
|
|
Legalese is not everyday English. You think that legalese sounds like nonsense because you're not a lawyer (or paralegal, etc.), but to us it sounds fine. The lawyer who wrote this said "un pays" is "non-adéquat," and our job is to translate, not rewrite.
|
|
| agree |
Cyril Tollari
: What if the author had a good reason to use "pays non-adéquat"? This answer would be the most helpful then. I would also provide the client with a note for any comment on the accuracy of the source text.
22 hrs
|
|
Merci.
|
|
| agree |
Daryo
: if the authors didn't feel the need to expand it to a 10 word term, let them have it.
1 day 6 hrs
|
-2
3 hrs
Adrian MM.
Austria
Austria
Native in English
Specializes in field
Austria
Retd.T&I, Barrister & Austro-Advokat
Native in: English (Variants: Scottish, British) 
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, French to English, and 5 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
359
inadequately protected country
Not possible to post any refs . - the insert function has disabled itself, but one bad improvisation deserves another.
Note from asker:
| Honoured as ever to have another suggestion from m'learned friend. But this time I have to agree with AllegroTrans' comment. |
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: Protected from what? Surely it means a country not affording adequate protection? // Silly answer
1 hr
|
|
Inadequately protected does not mean wanting in birth control, but was meant to be read as inadequately data-protected.
|
|
| disagree |
Eliza Hall
: The country itself provides the protection (or fails to). It's the data, not the country, that is protected (or not).
18 hrs
|
|
Read carefully my response to Allegro above.
|
|
| disagree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: Really? "one bad improvisation deserves another"
19 hrs
|
|
Yawn!
|
+1
1 day 17 hrs
"inadequate country"/country with an inadequate level of data protection
A difficult question, because pays non-adéquat is pure gibberish in French. Whoever invented/wrote that, well, enough said...
Whether or not the source text is a legal document is irrelevant: it's badly written. Does that mean the same should apply to the translation? I don't think so.
As I see it, you have two options:
1) if you really want to stick to the original or if you are afraid of interpreting (fair enough), then "inadequate country" would probably work, in linguistic terms. It would just be as meaningless as the source. I'd still use brackets to draw the reader's attention to something unusual (pour rester poli); or
2) you could try to make your text understandable and properly written without changing its (assumed) meaning, e.g. "country [with an inadequate]/[not providing an adequate]/[not ensuring an adequate] level of data protection" (see also SafeTex's answer). See recital 107 of the GDPR (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
As a translator who regularly deals with legal documents and lawyers, I cannot imagine sending my clients a translation which would include things like Pays adéquat : Ensemble des pays tiers... or un pays qui n’est pas établi dans l’UE or, of course, pays adéquat... pays non-adéquat.
Gibberish won't do, whatever the language. Choices or changes made compared to the source need to be explained or highlighted. It is then up to the client to make an informed decision.
CL3 because it's a legal question in English, but CL5 about the way I would handle this in my pair - I already have.
Reference comments
28 mins
Reference:
ce qu'en dit Reverso
https://dictionnaire.reverso.net/francais-anglais/niveau adé...
Dans le bas de la page, divers exemples de traduction
pays adéquat = pays avec un niveau de protection adéquat.
Votre texte semble faire un raccourci !
Dans le bas de la page, divers exemples de traduction
pays adéquat = pays avec un niveau de protection adéquat.
Votre texte semble faire un raccourci !
Note from asker:
| Thanks, but firstly I don't consider Reverso to be particularly authoritative, and secondly I couldn't actually find an instance in these examples where "pays non-adéquat" actually appears (let alone gets translated by something other than "non-adequate country"). Reverso examples *seem* quite legit, but unlike Linguee, for example, don't give links to where they came from... |
Peer comments on this reference comment:
| disagree |
Eliza Hall
: For anything other than a legal translation, I would agree. But this is a legal translation. Precision and utmost fidelity to what's written in the original are critical for legal translators.
33 mins
|
|
sans doute des consignes en entreprise, mais rien d'un contrat !
|
|
| agree |
Adrian MM.
3 hrs
|
|
merci
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
: Exactement
5 hrs
|
|
merci
|
|
| agree |
SafeTex
: Agree with poster's comments
18 hrs
|
|
merci
|
|
| disagree |
Daryo
: J'aurai été tenté de croire que les termes employés dans la législation même ont un tantinet plus de poids ...
1 day 5 hrs
|
Discussion
As you accepted my suggestion, I assumed that is what it was.
I don't know how to go back and change a glossary entry. is it possible?
I won't deny that I was very happy to see my suggestion accepted in this case :)
It has been entered into the glossary by me as
country with inadequate (data) protection
in view of what others said so thanks and credit goes to them too :)
Once again, I would like to say that I think that the forum is for us to work together including on the question of legalese, but this should not be forced down our throats, used to systematically disagree with others, especially when the disagreer has their own suggestion up, nor be a reason for arrogant lecturing or personal comments
But I realise that the rules on Proz do not ban this behaviour and that I can only appeal for this, but not insist upon it.
So I guess the arguing might well continue.
Just my view on this
Regards
SafeTex
Daryo: on the main issue: when an "adequacy decision" is taken the context presumably makes it clear that they are referring to the adequacy of the *protection*, not the adequacy of the *country*. Enough not to make it an open-and-shut case, I say. As SafeTex says, the legislation itself never uses "non-adequate country", so as a translator I feel free to correct the "mistake" of the elision of the drafter of my document. If that were to result in a preposterously unwieldy expression I'd think twice, but that isn't the case.
Another thought: in my many years of Fr-Eng legal translation, I think I have detected in French legalese a tendency to be slightly happier with elision of various kinds than in English legalese.
PS: I would indeed classify this as legalese, since it's obviously written by lawyers. It can be argued that their writing is slapdash: "vers un pays qui n’est pas établi dans un pays règlementé", clearly gobbledegook, etc.
I can't see much options to describe the opposite of "adequate" when you need it, whatever Google has to say about it.
I posted links to the official GDPR texts in English and French and made the same observation as you (adequacy decision, adequate protection) but noted too that "non-adequate country" or" pays non-adéquat" is NEVER used.
Chapter and verse:
https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/inte...
Also, this ST may well be "only" some internal instructions to employees, but it doesn't make it less "legalese" nor it would be in any way a pretext to start inventing your own rewording of a legislation - you don't explain to someone how to apply a law by inventing your own terms instead of those used in the relevant law.
That being the case, I guarantee you that it was drafted by lawyers. After all, you don't just ask your secretary or your communications guy to write a policy when a mistake in the policy could cause the company to break the law(!). Lawyers write this type of document all day long (company policies on how to avoid breaking data law, employment discrimination law, wage & labor law, medical privacy law, etc.).
It's a legal document. It's in legalese. The terms used were chosen by lawyers for a reason, not made up on the fly.
"A privacy policy is a legal notification that sets forth information collection, use and disposal practices." https://www.hinchnewman.com/practice-areas/internet-law/webs...
Job postings for lawyers who do nothing but draft privacy policies, contract provisions relating to data privacy, etc.: https://www.indeed.com/q-Privacy-Data-Protection-Counsel-job...
"pays adéquat" and "pays non-adéquat" does NOT appear in the official French translation as far as I can see.
https://www.cnil.fr/fr/reglement-europeen-protection-donnees...
So once again, I refute the legalese argument and that all lawyers are like Gods who we must "obey", especially in a case where the official text is legalese-free and then someone comes along and uses a stilted phrase to mean EXACTLY the same thing.
Just my take on this
Regards
SafeTex
If you read Art. 45 GDPR Transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision, the phrases "adequacy decision" or "adequate protection" is used but "non adequate" never occurs (nor does "inadequate").
But in view of the French which leans on "adequate decision", I think we have to accept one of the two suggestions up or a variation like "country with inadequate protection" (my preference)
Regards
That would be helpful, but not definitive. If the GDPR uses the term and there are standard EN and FR versions of the GDRP to refer to, then there's your answer--use the EN version of the term in the official EN translation of the GDRP.
But if it doesn't, then you're just dealing with legalese, and specifically a defined term in the contract (or corporate policy, same difference -- either way it was drafted by lawyers who used specific legal terms for certain reasons). The lawyers chose that term for a reason, so stick with it: Non-adequate country.
As a special gift to repay you for that moment of very welcome hilarity, let me share with you this legal term that does not exist outside of legalese. As a means of self-entertainment, you can challenge yourself to find ways to somehow insert it into normal conversation:
CHAMPERTY
a proceeding by which a person not a party in a suit bargains to aid in or carry on its prosecution or defense in consideration of a share of the matter in suit. Adjective: champertous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champerty
Legalese gets translated into legalese, just like medical and scientific terms get translated into medical and scientific terms -- NOT into everyday English (or whatever the target language is).
"Non-adéquat" isn't a word normally used in FR; "non-adequate" isn't a word normally used in EN. They're both legalese. They are utterly identical in meaning and tone. They are both one word long, so the translated term can be inserted into the contract provisions where the FR term is used without making the syntax unwieldy or the sentence too long. Perfect!
And on top of that, Mpoma has confirmed via google that these terms exist in English. Sounds like our job here is done.