Category Archives: Confidentiality

March 17, 2014 · 5:10 pm

A balanced view on Optic Nerve

As I’m keen always to take a balanced view of important privacy issues, and not descend into the sort of paranoid raving which always defines, say, the state as the enemy, capable of almost anything, I sometimes think I end up being a bit naive, or at least having naive moments.

So, when outgoing Chair of Ofcom Dame Colette Bowe recently gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, and said about consumers that

their smart TV may well have a camera and a microphone embedded in it there in their living room. What is that smart TV doing? Do people realise that this is a two-way street?

I thought for a moment “Oh come on, don’t be so scaremongering”. Sure, we saw the stories about Smart TVs and cookies, which is certainly an important privacy issue, but the idea that someone would use your TV to spy on you…?!

And then, of course, I quickly remembered – with a feeling of nausea – that that is exactly the sort of thing that GCHQ are alleged to have done, by jumping on the unencrypted web cam streams of Yahoo users, as part of the Optic Nerve program. And each time I remember this, it makes me want to scream “THEY WERE INDISCRIMINATELY SPYING ON PEOPLE…IN THEIR HOMES, IN THEIR BEDROOMS, FOR ****’S SAKE!”

And they were doing it just because they could. Because they’d notice a way – a vulnerability – and taken advantage of it to slurp masses of intensely private data, just in case it might prove useful in the future.

The intrusion, the prurience, the violation do indeed make me feel like raving against the state and its agents who, either through direct approval, or tacit acceptance, or negligence, allowed this to happen. Although *balance alert* GCHQ do, of course, assure us that “GCHQ insists all of its activities are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with UK law”. So that’s OK. And yes, they really did call it “proportionate”. 

I know the web cam grabbing was by no means the only such intrusion, but for me it exemplifies the “something” which went wrong, at some point, which led to this. I don’t know what that something was, or even how to fix it, and I’ve never used a web cam, so have no direct interest, but I will closely watch the progress of Simon Davies’ request for the Attorney General to refer the matter to the police.

Leave a comment

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, human rights, interception, Privacy, RIPA, surveillance

Tagged as , , ,

February 24, 2014 · 8:35 am

Hospital records sold to insurance companies – in breach of the Data Protection Act?

I’ve asked the ICO to assess whether the sale of millions of health records to insurance companies so that they could “refine” their premiums was compliant with the law

I’m about to disclose some sensitive personal data: I have been to hospital a few times over recent years…along with 47 million other people, whose records from these visits, according to reports in the media, were sold to an actuarial society for insurance premium purposes. The Telegraph reports

a report by a major UK insurance society discloses that it was able to obtain 13 years of hospital data – covering 47 million patients – in order to help companies “refine” their premiums.

As a result they recommended an increase in the costs of policies for thousands of customers last year. The report by the Staple Inn Actuarial Society – a major organisation for UK insurers – details how it was able to use NHS data covering all hospital in-patient stays between 1997 and 2010 to track the medical histories of patients, identified by date of birth and postcode.

I don’t know if this use of my sensitive personal data (if it was indeed my personal data) was in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), although sadly I suspect that it was, but section 42 of the DPA allows a data subject to request the Information Commissioner to make an assessment as to whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing has been or is being carried out in compliance with the provisions of the DPA. So that’s what I’ve done:

Hi

As a data subject with a number of hospital episodes over recent years I am disturbed to hear that the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) of potentially 47 million patients were disclosed to Staple Inn Actuarial Society (SIAS), apparently for the purposes of helping insurance companies “refine” their premiums. I became aware of this through reports in the media (e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html). I am asking, pursuant to my right under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the ICO to assess whether various parts of this process were in compliance with the relevant data controllers’ obligations under the DPA:

1) I was not aware, until relatively recently, that HESs were provided to the HSCIC – was this disclosure by hospitals compliant with their DPA obligations?

2) Was the general processing (e.g. retention, manipulation, anonymisation, pseudonymisation) of this personal data compliant with HSCIC’s or, to the extent that HSCIC is a data processor to NHS England’s data controller, NHS England’s DPA obligations?

3) Was the disclosure of what appears to have been sensitive personal data (I note the broad definition of “personal data”, and your own guidance on anonymisation) to SIAS compliant with HSCIC’s (or NHS England’s) DPA obligations

4) Was SIAS’s subsequent processing of this sensitive personal data compliant with its DPA obligations?

You will appreciate that I do not have access to some information, so it may be that when I refer to HSCIC or NHS England or SIAS I should refer to predecessor organisations.

Please let me know if you need any further information to make this assessment.

with best wishes, Jon Baines

We’ve been told on a number of occasions recently that we shouldn’t be worried about our GP records being uploaded to HSCIC under the care.data initiative, because our hospital records have been used in this way for so long. Clare Gerada, former Chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote in the BMJ that

for 25 years, hospital data have been handled securely with a suite of legal safeguards to protect confidentiality—the exact same safeguards that will continue to be applied when primary care data are added

Well, it seems to me that those legal safeguards might have failed to prevent (indeed, might have actively permitted) a breach involving 47 million records. I’m very interested to know what the Information Commissioner’s assessment will be.

UPDATE: 24 February 2014

An ICO spokesperson later said:

“We’re aware of this story, and will be gathering more information – specifically around whether the information had been anonymised – before deciding what action to take.”

UPDATE: 25 February 2014

At the Health Select Committee hearing into the care.data initiative HSCIC and NHS England representatives appeared not to know much about what data was disclosed, and in what circumstances, and effectively blamed NHSIC as a predecessor organisation. This echoed the statement from HSCIC the previous evening

The HSCIC believes greater scrutiny should have been applied by our predecessor body prior to an instance where data was shared with an actuarial society

UPDATE: 27 February 2014

GP and Clinical Lecturer Anne Marie Cunningham has an excellent post on what types of data were apparently disclosed by NHSIC (or HSCIC), and subsequently processed by, or on behalf, of SIAS. I would recommend reading the comments as well. It does seems to me that we may still be talking about pseudonymised personal data, which would mean that the relevant data controllers still had obligations under the DPA, and the ICO would have jurisdiction to investigate, and, if necessary, take regulatory action.

See also Tony Hirst’s blog posts on the subject . These are extremely complex issues, but, at a time when the future of the sharing and linking of health and other data is being hotly debated, and when the ICO is seeking feedback on its Anonymisation Code of Practice, they are profoundly important ones.

UPDATE: 14 March 2014

The ICO has kindly acknowledged receipt of my request for assessment, saying it has been passed to their health sector team for “further detailed consideration”.

UPDATE: 24 May 2014

Er, there is no real update. There was a slight hiccup, when the ICO told me it was not making an assessment because “[it] is already aware of this issue and is investigating them accordingly. Given that we do not necessarily require individual complaints to take consider taking further action your case is closed”. After I queried the legal basis for failing to make a section 42 assessment as requested, the position was “clarified”:

…we will make an assessment in relation to this case, however we are unable to do so at this present time…This is because the office is currently investigating whether, as alleged in the media, actual personal data has been shared by the HSCIC to various other organisations including Staple Inn, PA consulting and Google

I don’t criticise the ICO for taking its time to investigate: it involves a complicated assessment of whether the data disclosed was personal data. In a piece I wrote recently for the Society of Computers and Law I described the question of whether data is anonymous or not as a “profound debate”. And it is also highly complex. But what this delay, in assessing just one aspect of health data disclosure, does show, is that the arbitrary six-month delay to the implementation of care.data was never going to be sufficient to deal with all the issues, and sufficiently assure the public, and medical practitioners, to enable it to proceed. A vote on 23 May by the BMA’s Local Medical Committee’s conference emphatically illustrates this.

13 Comments

Filed under care.data, Confidentiality, Data Protection, data sharing, Information Commissioner, NHS, Privacy

Tagged as , , ,

February 1, 2014 · 10:01 am

Big Pharma and care.data

Patients’ identifiable medical data will end up in the hands of large pharmaceutical companies, under the care.data initiative. With “Big Pharma” beholden to shareholders, and its abysmal record on transparency, is this another reason to consider opting out?

We are often told by those publicly defending the care.data programme (I’m thinking particularly of NHS Chief Data Officer Geraint Lewis, and NHS National Director for Patients and Information Tim Kelsey, who at least are prepared to engage with critics – although the latter has a habit of resorting to personal attacks at times) that patients’ identifiable/amber/pseudonymised data will not be made available to commercial organisations to use for their own purposes. So, we are told, it cannot be used for the purposes of selling or administering any kind of insurance, or for marketing purposes. As the pdf of FAQs, to which we are often referred (by Geraint in particular) says

Potentially identifiable data – these data do not include identifiers but may be considered identifiable (e.g. due to a patient in an area having a rare disease or a rare combination of characteristics). There are strict controls around the limited release of such data. For example, there must be a contract in place, the data are only released to approved organisations, and restricted to a specific purposes that will benefit the health and social care system
Let’s ignore for now the awkward question of how these restrictions can effectively be enforced. Let’s also ignore the fact that this data will not simply be “released” – organisations will pay for it, and a commercial organisation, with fiduciary obligations to its owners or shareholders, is not going to pay for something unless there is potential financial benefit.
What I wanted to highlight is that purposes that will benefit the health and social care system will generally boil down to two things: commissioning of services, and research. Regarding the latter, as the NHS Health Research Authority says this can take many forms, and be undertaken by many different bodies, but it will be no big revelation if I point out that vast amounts of research are conducted by, or under the control of, huge pharmaceutical companies – Big Pharma. Doctor and journalist Ben Goldacre has been campaigning for a number of years, following up the lead of others such as Iain Chalmers to expose the fact that an enormous amount of data and results from research – specifcally, admittedly, of clinical trials – is withheld by Big Pharma. This led to the setting-up of the AllTrials campaign. As Ben said, on the publication of a damning report by the Public Accounts Committee into the withholding of trial results for Tamiflu
[the] report is a complete vindication of AllTrials’ call for all the results, of all the trials, on all the uses of all currently prescribed treatments. None of the proposed new legislation or codes of conduct come anywhere close to this simple, vital ask. Industry has claimed it is on the verge of delivering transparency for over two decades. While obfuscating and delaying, ever more results have been withheld. Some in industry now claim that results from even a decade ago may be lost and inaccessible. This is both implausible and unacceptable…We cannot make informed decisions about which treatment is best when vitally important information is routinely and legally kept secret. Future generations will look back at this absurd situation in the same way that we look back on mediaeval bloodletting
This is the same industry which will be able to purchase patients’ identifiable medical data, uploaded from their GP records for research purposes. Will the NHS ever see the results of this research if, for instance, those results could have a potentially adverse effect on the companies’ share prices? Will there be any legal or contractual mechanisms in place to ensure that we don’t see similar obfuscating and delaying, and withholding of results?
Is it really the insurance and marketing companies we need to worry about?

Leave a comment

Filed under care.data, Confidentiality, data sharing, NHS, Privacy

Tagged as ,

January 31, 2014 · 4:55 pm

The care.data leaflet campaign – legally necessary?

Readers of this blog [sometimes I imagine them1] may well be fed up with posts about care.data (see here, here and here). But this is my blog and I’ll cry if I want to. So…

Doyen of information rights bloggers, Tim Turner, has written in customary analytic detail on how the current NHS care.data leafleting campaign was not necessitated by data protection law, and on how, despite some indications to the contrary, GPs will not be in the Information Commissioner’s firing line if they fail adequately to inform patients about what will be happening to their medical data.

He’s right, of course: where a data controller is subject to a legal obligation to disclose personal data (other than under a contract) then it is not obliged, pace the otherwise very informative blogpost by the Information Commissioner’s Dawn Monaghan, to give data subjects a privacy, or fair processing notice.

(In passing, and in an attempt to outnerd the unoutnerdable, I would point out that Tim omits that, by virtue of The Data Protection (Conditions under Paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 1) Order 2000, if a data subject properly requests a privacy notice in circumstances where a data controller is subject to a legal obligation to disclose personal data (other than under a contract) and would, thus, otherwise not be required to issue one, the data controller must comply2.)

Tim says, though

The leaflet drop is no way to inform people about such a significant step, but I don’t think it is required

That appears to be true, under data protection law, but, under broader obligations imposed on the relevant authorities under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated in domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998, it might not be so (and here, unlike with data protection law, we don’t have to consider the rigid controller/processor dichotomy in order to decide who the relevant, and liable, public authority is, and I would suggest that NHS England (as the “owner of the care.data programme” in Dawn Monaghan’s words) seems the obvious candidate, but GPs might also be caught).

In 1997 the European Court of Human Rights addressed the very-long-standing concept of the confidentiality of doctor-patient relations, in the context of personal medical data, in Z v Finland (1997) 25 EHRR 371, and said

the Court will take into account that the protection of personal data, not least medical data, is of fundamental importance to a person’s enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8). Respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal systems of all the Contracting Parties to the Convention. It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general…Without such protection, those in need of medical assistance may be deterred from revealing such information of a personal and intimate nature as may be necessary in order to receive appropriate treatment and, even, from seeking such assistance, thereby endangering their own health and, in the case of transmissible diseases, that of the community

This, I think, nicely encapsulates why so many good and deep-thinking people have fundamental concerns about care.data.

Now, I am not a lawyer, let alone a human rights lawyer, but it does occur to me that a failure to inform patients about what would be happening with their confidential medical records when GP’s were required to upload them, and a failure to allow them to opt-out, would have potentially infringed patients’ Article 8 rights. We should not forget that, initially, there was no intention to inform patients at all (there had no attempt to inform patients about the similar upload of hospital medical data, which has been going on for over twenty years). It is, surely, possible therefore, that NHS England is not just “helping” GPs to inform patients without having any responsibility to do so (as Dawn Monaghan suggests), but that it recognises its potential vulnerability to an Article 8 challenge, and is trying to avoid or mitigate this. Whether the leaflets themselves, and the campaign to deliver them, are adequate to achieve this aim is another matter. As has been noted, the leaflet contains no opt out form, and there seem to be numerous examples of people (often vulnerable people, for instance in care homes, or refuges) who will have little or no chance of receiving a copy.

At the launch of the tireless MedConfidential campaign last year, Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, spoke passionately about the potential human rights vulnerabilities of the care.data programme. Notifying patients of what is proposed might not have been necessary under data protection law, but it is quite possible that the ECHR aspect of doing so was one of the things on which the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) has been legally advised. Someone made an FOI request for this advice last year, and it is notable that HSCIC seem never to have completed their response to the request.

1I make no apologies for linking to one of Larkin’s most beautiful, but typically bleak and dystopian, pieces of prose, but I would add that it finishes “…These have I tried to remind of the excitement of jazz, and tell where it may still be found.”

2Unless the data controller does not have sufficient information about the individual in order readily to determine whether he is processing personal data about that individual, in which case the data controller shall send to the individual a written notice stating that he cannot provide the requisite information because of his inability to make that determination, and explaining the reasons for that inability

2 Comments

Filed under care.data, Confidentiality, Data Protection, data sharing, Europe, human rights, Information Commissioner, NHS, Privacy

Tagged as , ,

January 20, 2014 · 3:14 pm

care.data – what am I worried will happen?

I was invited today on twitter to say what I was worried will happen as a result of the care.data programme. I’ve written about this previously, and some of my concerns are laid out in those posts. But here’s a little list:

  • I am worried that even the most robust and secure data security measures can fail, or be overridden. Patients’ identifiable data could be compromised.
  • I am worried that there is a limit to how much users of the data could be restrained from making secondary, not-beneficial-to-patients, usage of data to which they are given access (Geraint Lewis, NHS Chief Data officer, was asked how, for instance, insurance companies would be prevented from doing this – he pointed to the Information Commissioner’s powers to impose Monetary Penalty Notices to a maximum of £500,000 for suitably serious contraventions of the Data Protection Act 1998. But a penalty for misuse of data will only be a net penalty if it outstrips profit from the usage.)
  • I am worried that some people will avoid seeking medical treatment, particularly for sensitive or serious ailments, if they in turn worry about who might have access to their data.
  • I am, in more general terms, worried about the lack of transparency that has surrounded the programme, and the lack of clear information. I am worried that, if the risks are so low and the benefits so high, why were initial attempts made to sneak this under the public’s radar?
  • I am worried that the amassing of and use of personal data in itself carries risks.
  • I am worried that I am wrong about all this, and that I am attacking a programme which will potentially deliver personal and societal benefits.

But, ultimately, I am not sure it is for me to say specifically what I am worried will happen. I don’t know specifically what will happen with a lot of things I worry about.

Surely it is for the proponents of care.data to say why I should be reassured. And I’m not.

4 Comments

Filed under care.data, Confidentiality, Data Protection, data sharing, Information Commissioner

Tagged as ,

January 13, 2014 · 4:42 pm

Why I’ve opted-out of care.data

Last week, after months of (over)thinking about it, I sent my GP a letter, based on the excellent template by the tireless MedConfidential refusing consent for identifiable data from my electronic medical records to be transferred to the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC).

I won’t rehearse the eloquent arguments against the current care.data proposals that you can read on MedConfidential’s site, and elsewhere (for instance GP Neil Bhatia’s excellent site). Nor will I rehearse arguments in favour. I have written about the subject in the past, and I don’t want to add to the general clamour. What I do want to say is why I have opted-out:

  • I’ve been struck by the inaccuracy and disingenuousness of the information which is being given to us in support of care.data. We are told, for instance, that “Your date of birth, full postcode, NHS Number and gender rather than your name will be used to link your records in a secure system, managed by the HSCIC. Once this information has been linked, a new record will be created. This new record will not contain information that identifies you”. This is cleverly worded: it does not say (because it would not be true) that this data will be anonymised, but it certainly tries to give that impression.
  • I have, ever since I first became aware of this issue, noted that there has been a lack of openness on the part of proponents. This has manifested itself in many ways, and people should be aware that the current leafleting campaign (as flawed as it is – note that it is not personally addressed to individuals, but simply sent to households, and doesn’t contain a form enabling people to opt-out) would not have come about were it not for concerns raised about this lack of openness.
  • I’ve noted the emotive campaign launched by leading charities in support of the campaign. But I’ve also noted the response by MedConfidential  which highlights that the charities’ campaign doesn’t draw attention to secondary usage of the information gathered, which could potentially be by pharmaceutical and other commerical companies, universities and other academic organisations, information intermediaries and think-tanks. On a general level, I do not think that amassing of personal data can ever be without potential risks and drawbacks, some of which include – the risk of breaches of data security, the risk of people failing to seek medical advice because of privacy fears, commercial use – and none of which are addressed in the charities’ campaign.
  • Finally, and, for me, crucially, if I fail to opt-out now, I’ve lost my chance – my data once uploaded cannot be deleted. However, opting out now does not preclude opting in in future. So, should I subsequently become convinced that societal and individual benefits from this amassing of electronic personal data outweigh my strong concerns about privacy and consent, I can change my mind in a way I couldn’t if I failed to opt out now.

13 Comments

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, data sharing, Privacy

Tagged as ,

November 29, 2013 · 5:07 pm

ICO must disclose Motorman journalists’ names

The ICO has been ordered to disclose the names of some of the journalists referred to in “What Price Privacy” as having engaged the services of rogue private investigator Steve Whittamore

In April 2006 the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published “What Price Privacy?” on what it described as “the unlawful trade in personal information”. The report revealed

evidence of systematic breaches in personal privacy that amount to an unlawful trade in confidential personal information

Those breaches were potential criminal offences under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and the report – which drew on the findings of documentation seized during Operation Motorman, arising from the activities of private investigator Steve Whittamore, said

Among the ‘buyers’ are many journalists looking for a story. In one major case investigated by the ICO, the evidence included records of information supplied to 305 named journalists working for a range of newspapers

In December 2006 the six-month follow-up report “What Price Privacy Now?” was published. This gave further details about the 305 journalists mentioned in the first report, and broke the data down into “Publication”, “Number of transactions positively identified” and “Number of journalists/clients using the services”.

And of course, this trade in personal information formed the basis of the first module (“The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour”) of part one of Lord Justice (as he was then) Leveson’s inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

In 2011 a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the ICO, for (1) “the number of transactions per journalist of each of the 305 identified journalists for each of the 32 identified publications” and (2) the journalists’ identities. The first request was refused by the ICO, on the basis that it would require a search through 17000 documents, and, therefore, section 12 of FOIA provided a statutory cost limit which meant it did not have to comply. Having been given these apparent facts the requester dropped his first request, but pursued the second. This was also refused, on the basis that the information was exempt under section 40(2) and section 44 of FOIA (the latter by virtue of the statutory bar on disclosure at section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)), in both cases because disclosure would be an unfair and unlawful disclosure of personal data of the journalists involved.

Because the ICO is the regulator of FOIA, a complaint about its handling of a FOIA request falls to be determined by the same office (a statutory arrangement which was to be described as an “unusual, and unsatisfactory, feature” of the law by the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT)). Accordingly, the office (describing itself as “the Commissioner”, as distinct from the “ICO”, which was the authority refusing the request) issued a Decision Notice which held that

the ICO correctly withheld the information by virtue of section 40(2). He has also found that the information could also be correctly withheld by virtue of section 44(1)

This decision was appealed to the FTT, which has today, after what has clearly been complex and strongly argued litigation, handed down three judgments (1, 2, 3) (two of which were preliminary or interim rulings, publication of which has been held back until now) which are, taken together, extraordinary, both for their criticism of the ICO, and for the outcome.

Taken as a whole the judgments find that, regarding some of the journalists named in the information held by the ICO, the balance of the public interest in receiving the information outweighs the legitimate interest of an individual to protect his or her privacy.

The FTT found that the information wasn’t sensitive personal data (which is afforded a greater level of protection by the DPA). This is at first blush rather surprising: section 2(2) of the DPA provides that sensitive data will be, inter alia, “data consisting of information as to…the commission or alleged commission by [the data subject] of any offence”. However, the FTT found that, although the information

does contain evidence that the investigator [Whittamore] engaged by the journalist committed, or contemplated committing, criminal activity. And, self-evidently, it discloses that the investigator received some form of instruction from the journalist. But there is no suggestion…that the journalist had instructed the investigator to use unlawful methods or that he or she had turned a blind eye to their adoption or, indeed, whether he or she had in fact expressly forbidden the investigator from doing anything that was not strictly legal [para 11 of third ruling]

The FTT had also invited submissions from the parties on the significance to the instant case of some of the passages from the Leveson inquiry, and, having received them, took note from those passages of

the issues of impropriety (which, while very possibly not involving criminality on journalists’ part, is nevertheless serious) and corporate governance in the context of the privacy rights of the [journalists]. We believe that, together, they give rise to a very substantial interest in the public knowing the identities of those who instructed the investigators [para 18 of third ruling]

But also tending towards favouring disclosure in the public interest was Leveson’s suggested criticisms of the ICO

We also give some weight to the public interest in knowing more about the information which was in the possession of the ICO and which the Leveson Report suggested it failed adequately to pursue [para 18 of third ruling]

The FTT noted the interests of the journalists, for instance that they would have had an expectation that details of their day-to-day professional activities would remain confidential, and that the Commissioner had argued that

publication of information indicating that they had engaged the services of the investigators concerned would be so unfair as to outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure [para 19 of third ruling]

but the FTT also noted, in effect, that the journalists involved must have had some idea of what was going on when they engaged Whittamore

it must have been well known within the profession what types of information could be obtained with the help of investigators, even if the means of obtaining it were not fully understood. The rights of individuals under data protection laws would also have been widely known at the time. In those circumstances those engaging the particular services…should have known that they ran the risk of becoming involved in behaviour that fell short of acceptable standards. This seriously dilutes the weight to be attributed to their privacy rights and leads us to conclude that the balance tips in favour of disclosure [para 19 of third ruling]

Accordingly, and, unless there is an appeal (Iwould be surprised if there isn’t) the names of some of the journalists who engaged Whittamore must be disclosed.

Other matters – criticism of ICO

In its preliminary ruling (November 2012) the FTT makes some trenchant criticism of the ICO’s handling of the requester’s first request (even though, as the requester did not pursue it, it was outwith the FTT’s jurisdiction). The refusal on costs grounds had been made, based upon a statement that the information requested had not been recorded in a database. Yet less than two months later the Leveson inquiry began, and, at that inquiry, evidence presented by the ICO effectively, in the FTT’s view, contradicted this statement

 we do not understand how the Appellant could have been given such a misleading response to the First Information Request…as a result of the misleading information given to the Appellant, he was not able to pursue his request…We only became aware of the ICO’s error after the Appellant drew our attention to the evidence presented to the Leveson Inquiry regarding the Spreadsheets. We assume (and certainly hope) that those in the Commissioner’s office handling this appeal had not become aware sooner [para 28 of first ruling]

The ICO clearly did not take well to this criticism, because the second interim ruling records that

the Commissioner has complained about part of the decision which he believes includes unfair criticism of his office and has asked us to correct the impression given [para 3 of second ruling]

but the FTT stood firm, saying

We continue to believe that our criticism was justified. The Appellant was told that he was wrong to assume that any database of information existed that could be interrogated…However, it is now known that the ICO held the Spreadsheets at the time…[and although the information in them] may not have provided the Appellant with precisely the information he requested, but it would have come close. Against that background we believe that the ICO was open to criticism for asserting, without further qualification, that it would be necessary to search through the 17,000 documents in order to respond to the request. [para 6 of second ruling]

5 Comments

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, journalism, Leveson, Privacy

Tagged as , , ,

November 18, 2013 · 4:46 pm

In which I ask the ICO for a Decision Notice

In September of this year I blogged about a request I made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for details of which website some personal data had been inadvertently uploaded to, by a council employee, which had led to a monetary penalty notice. I have now had the ICO’s response to my internal review. I do not have (and haven’t sought) permission to upload that response, but suffice to say it doesn’t uphold my complaint. For those of you still awake I append my response to it here:

I am reluctantly now applying to the Commissioner for a decision whether my request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
 
I am of the view that you do have lawful authority to disclose the information, and, therefore, section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is not engaged (and by extension nor is the substantive exemption claimed: section 44 of FOIA). Before I give my reasons I would just like to clarify an error on my part: I erred in my request for internal review when I queried whether section 59(1)(c) DPA was met. What I meant was that I accepted that sections 59(1)(a-c) were met, but I doubted whether there was a lack of lawful authority for the ICO to disclose.
 
My reasons why I believe you do have lawful authority to disclose are substantially the same as I gave in the rest of my request for internal review. I will repeat them here for completeness’ sake:
 
Section 59(2)(e) says that disclosure is made with lawful authority if “having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary in the public interest”. I would argue that analysis of whether this provision permits disclosure requires a two-fold test. Firstly, is disclosure necessary in the public interest? Secondly, if it is, do the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person militate against this public-interest disclosure?

On the first point, I am not aware of any direct authority on what “necessary” means in section 59(2)(e) of DPA, but I would argue that it imports the meaning adopted by leading European authorities. Thus, as per the high Court in Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 1084 “‘necessary”…should reflect the meaning attributed to it by the European Court of Human Rights when justifying an interference with a recognised right, namely that there should be a pressing social need and that the interference was both proportionate as to means and fairly balanced as to ends”. It is my view that there is a pressing social need to recognise the risks of indavertent uploading to the internet, by public authorities and others, of sensitive personal data, especially when this is by automatic means. Other examples of recent incidents and enforcement action illustrate this. For instance, as your office is aware, there have been reports that a regional Citizens’ Advice Bureau has indavertently made available on the internet very large amounts of such data, probably because of a lack of technical knowledge or security which resulted in automatic caching by Google of numerous files https://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2013/09/24/citizens-advice-bureaucracy/. Also for instance, as you are aware, there have been many many examples of indavertent internet publishing of personal data in hidden cells in spreadsheets http://www.ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/the-risk-of-revealing-too-much. There is a clear lack of public understanding of the risks of such indavertent disclosures, with a consequent risk to the privacy of individuals’ often highly sensitive personal data. Any information which the regulator of the DPA can disclose which informs and improves public understanding of these risks serves a pressing social need and makes the disclosure “necessary”.

On the second point, I simply fail to see what rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person can be engaged, let alone suffer a detriment by disclosing what public website the Council employee uploaded this to. If there are any, it would be helpful if your response to this Internal Review could address this. It may be that you would point to the information having been provided to you in confidence, but I similarly fail to see how that can be: was this an express obligation of confidence, or have you inferred it? In either case, I would question (per one the elements of the classic formulation for a cause of action in breach of confidence given by Megarry J in Coco v A.N.Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] R.P.C. 41) whether the information even has the necessary quality of confidence (this was a public website after all).

However, I make the following further observations.

You say “I consider that the public interest here has been largely, if not entirely, met by the issuing and publication of the Monetary Penalty Notice dated 27 August 2013, the publication of the ICO News release dated 30 August 2013, and other press coverage concerning this particular data breach and how it occurred. I do not consider that disclosure of the name of the website would further this to any significant extent”. However, these sources of information were noticeably lacking in detail about how exactly the rather bizarre and worrying circumstances described in the Monetary Penalty Notice (MPN) could have happened: automatic upload to cloud storage can happen, but normally this will be to private storage – automatic upload to a “public website” is rather alarming.

I note, in passing, some recent criticism of the level of detail, or lack of clarity, in MPNs made by the First-tier Tribunal (see para 17 of the Scottish Borders case, and, the Niebel case, effectively throughout).

I also note that you say “when considering the balance of the public interest in relation to section 59(2)(e) it has to be borne in mind that the threshold is very high because disclosure in contravention of section 59, by the Commissioner or a member of ICO staff may/will constitute a criminal offence under section 59(3)”. With respect, whether the Commissioner or a member of his staff might commit a criminal offence is not relevant to whether the public interest means disclosure is necessary. If disclosure is necessary section 59(1) does not apply, and no suggestion of a criminal offence can arise. Moreover, you say “unless there is ‘lawful authority’ to disclose the information, to do so would constitute a criminal offence” and “disclosure in contravention of section 59, by the Commissioner or a member of ICO staff may/will constitute a criminal offence under section 59(3)”, and “Releasing information of this nature without lawful authority would not only constitute a criminal offence…”: all of these omit the crucial mens rea aspect of that offence, which is that the disclosure would have to be made knowingly or recklessly.

You go on to say “There is a strong public interest in information being provided to the Commissioner in confidence, to enable him to carry out his statutory duty, remaining confidential and that this information will not be disclosed without lawful authority. Releasing information of this nature without lawful authority would not only constitute a criminal offence but would also undermine the regulatory function and powers of the ICO. It would damage public trust in the Commissioner’s processes and make organisations less willing to share information on a voluntary basis making it difficult for the ICO to operate an efficient and effective regulatory system”. This repeats the earlier assertions, or implications, that the information in question is “confidential” or has been “provided…in confidence”, which I continue to dispute for reasons previously given (and not controverted), and makes further assertions that disclosing such information now would “make organisations less willing to share information on a voluntary basis making it difficult for the ICO to operate an efficient and effective regulatory system”. There appears simply to be no basis for this “chilling effect” assertion (is there, for instance, evidence to back it up?).

Finally, I note that you say “we did consult with Aberdeen City Council and we do not have explicit consent for disclosure”. You do not say when this consultation took place, but it appears that Aberdeen at some point changed their mind on this, because on 15 October they disclosed the information to me under FOIA (see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ico_monetary_penalty_notice#outgoing-307019). Clearly, this means that I do not continue to seek disclosure. It also explains why I say I make this application reluctantly (I have no wish to have you, or me, epxend time and resources unnecessarily). But I do wish to dispute that my request to you was handled according to requirements in part 1 of FOIA.

I am happy to provide any further information you might need.
with best wishes

etc

Leave a comment

Filed under Confidentiality, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice

Tagged as ,

October 25, 2013 · 4:02 pm

One for the insomniacs – Upper Tribunal on EIRs and commercial confidentiality

In May 2012 I blogged about a case in the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT).  It was an appeal by  Swansea Friends of the Earth against a decision of the Information Commissioner (IC) not to require the Environment Agency to disclose  information relating to financial guarantee arrangements put in place a landfill site operator, as a condition for obtaining a permit to operate a waste landfill site near Swansea.

I was critical of the FTT’s approach to breach of confidence, as it applies to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). However, with the handing down of judgment by the Upper Tribunal, following an appeal by Natural Resources Wales, as successor to the Environment Agency, I see I was wrong on two points (one minor, one major), right on another, and my key point was left undecided. Exciting stuff folks – hold on to your hats!

My minor error was to repeat the FTT’s description of Megarry J’s classic tri-partite breach of confidence test in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 44 as being a common law doctrine. As the Upper Tribunal points out

That, to be correct, is a decision about the equitable doctrine of confidential communication (not the common law) that may arise otherwise than by contract between the parties

Silly me. Silly FTT.

Natural Resources Wales argued before the Upper Tribunal that

there was a statutory obligation in place [militating against disclosure], so that the Agency did not have to rely on equitable grounds

And this goes to my major error, which was to overlook, in striving to make a point of general application about the modern development of the law of confidence, that in this specific case the IC’s original Decision Notice had found that information in question was confidential for the purposes of Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR firstly because the provisions of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (PPCR) (which were the regulations – since revoked and remade – which applied to the licence in question) effectively made it so, and only secondly because the information and the circumstances by which it came into the Environment Agency’s control met the Coco v Clark tests.

Regulation 12(5)(e) provides that

a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect…the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest

The Upper Tribunal held that the FTT had erred in law, saying (paragraphs 51-52), as had the IC in the first instance, that relevant provisions of the PPCR meant that confidentiality was “provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest”:

disclosure of the relevant information would adversely affect confidentiality “where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest”… Here that must be regarded as a reference across to regulation 31 of the 2000 Regulations. Regulation 31(1)(a) makes an express reference to commercial confidentiality. The factual background to these appeals makes it plain that the figures in question here were figures produced within the 2000 Regulations framework and were subject to the necessary application and ruling to protect confidentiality of them

So it was not necessary to consider whether the information was also covered by the equitable doctrine of confidence.

The point on which I was right (in my original post) was regarding whether, or the extent to which, regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR was directly comparable to the similar section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I said

This extension of the FOIA confidentiality principles into the EIR is controversial…

and the Upper Tribunal judge says

the tests in section 41 and regulation 12 are separate and cannot be read together to include in one something in the other simply because they deal with similar issues

which is pretty unequivocal (and see also Chichester District Council v IC and Friel (GIA 1253 2011), cited as authority for the lack of analogy between the two).

Finally, another point I hadn’t addressed (although Phil Bradshaw did, in the comments to my original post) concerns the failure by the FTT to distinguish between the location of information in documents, with the information itself. The FTT had said

the information came into existence through a process of negotiation between the parties

but this surely was not the case – rather, documents, containing information, came into existence through a process of negotiation. But the information itself was caught by regulation 12(5)(e)

the focus is on this information, not on any particular document or form in which those figures are recorded or any process by which they emerged. I accordingly agree with the challengers that in so far as the First-tier Tribunal concerned itself with the specific location of those figures in specific documents produced as part of the licensing process rather than the information itself it was wrong in law

So there you have it. A rip-roaring convoluted run-through of why an obscure old blog post by me was slightly wrong and slightly right. I aim to please.

Leave a comment

Filed under Confidentiality, Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, Upper Tribunal

Tagged as ,

October 4, 2013 · 8:20 am

CQC and data protection, redux

In June this year I blogged about the furore caused when the Care Quality Commission (CQC) initially refused, citing data protection law, to identify four members of staff who were alleged to have tried to cover up an critical internally-commissioned report into its oversight of the University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Trust.

Even Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner got involved, saying

This feels like a public authority hiding behind the Data Protection Act – it’s very common but you have to go by what the law says and the law is very clear

and, perhaps as a result of his intervention, the day after the news broke, the CQC changed position, saying

We have reviewed the issues again with our legal advisers (and taken into account the comments of the Information Commissioner). In light of this further consideration, we have come to the view that the overriding public interest in transparency and accountability gives us sufficient grounds to disclose the names of the individuals who were anonymised in the report.

I had wondered if the reason for the initial non-disclosure was because of doubt as to the veracity of the reported cover-up comments, perhaps in conjunction with a challenge by the data subjects, on the basis that publishing that they had made those comments was untrue, and potentially defamatory and, therefore, in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA):

on the information currently available, there is perhaps a lack of hard evidence to establish to an appropriate level of certainty that the person or persons alleged to have suppressed the report did so, or did so in the way they are alleged to have done. For that reason, it could indeed be a breach of the DPA to disclose the names at this stage

Yesterday, news emerged that the CQC had published a statement on its website exonerating one of the people named

  • Anna Jefferson had not used “any inappropriate phrases” as attributed to her by one witness quoted in the Grant Thornton report; and

  • Anna Jefferson had not supported any instruction to delete an internal report prepared by a colleague – Louise Dineley.

The CQC regrets any distress Anna Jefferson has suffered as a consequence of this matter

So, it looks like someone was wrongly identified as committing an act of misconduct. Ms Jefferson is said to have been “deeply upset” by the allegations, and describes it as having been a “difficult time”.

In a postscript to my original blog post I wondered idly about

the rather interesting (if unlikely) possibility that the persons now named could complain to the ICO for a determination as to whether disclosure was in fact in breach of their rights under the DPA

It is possible that the statement on the CQC website is in fact an attempt to avoid this, or alternative, legal action. I wonder if Christopher Graham is going to revisit his comments.

1 Comment

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, defamation, Information Commissioner

Tagged as , ,