Category Archives: Data Protection Act 2018

ICO secures court-awarded compensation

ICO often say they can’t award compensation, but what they can do is – in criminal cases – make an application for the court to make an award (separate to any fines or costs). But as far as I know, until this case last week, they’d never done so:

https://www.mishcon.com/news/ico-recommends-compensation-awards-in-criminal-prosecution-case

Leave a comment

Filed under crime, damages, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, Information Commissioner

High Court muddle over data protection regime

A relatively common error by those unaccustomed to the rather odd structure of the data protection statutory regime in the UK, is to look first to the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) for the applicable law, instead of the UK GDPR. This is despite the fact that the very first section of the DPA instructs us in how the regime works. Section 1(2) provides that “most processing of personal data is subject to the UK GDPR”, and then sections 1(4) and (5) explain that Parts 3 and 4 of the DPA deal with those parts of the regime (law enforcement processing and intelligence services processing) which are out of the scope of UK GDPR.

“Put me to one side” – says the DPA tactfully – “you should have picked up your copy of the UK GDPR first, and not me”.

Accordingly, the key provisions, and the basic principles, applying to most processing, are to be found in the UK GDPR.

The result of this relatively common error, is that people will sometimes cite, say, section 45 of the DPA in relation to a generic subject access request, when in fact, the applicable provision is Article 15 of the UK GDPR (section 45 applies to subject access requests to competent authorities for the purposes of law enforcement).

Occasionally, I have seen non-specialist lawyers make this mistake.

And now, I have seen a high court judge do the same. In a judicial review case in the High Court of Northern Ireland, challenging the accuracy of a child’s social care records, part of the claim (which was primarily an Article 8 human rights claim) was pleaded as also a breach of Article 5(1) and (6) of the “GDPR” (the correct pleading should have been, and maybe was, by reference to the UK GDPR) and Part 1 of the DPA. Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR contains the data protection principles.

The judge, however, stated that

It seems to the court that in fact the relevant part of the 2018 Act are sections 86 to 91 which set out the six data protection principles in relation to data processing.

This is simply wrong. Sections 86 to 91 of the DPA lay out the data protection principles only in relation to intelligence services processing (i.e. processing of personal data by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or by the Government Communications Headquarters).

It isn’t clear whether there was any discussion about this in the court (quite possibly not), but it appears not to have been picked up when the judgment was circulated in draft or published to the parties. As it is, it seems very likely that nothing turns on it. This is because the Part 4 DPA principles, like the Part 3 DPA principles, effectively mirror the principles in Article 5(1) UK GDPR, and so the analysis, for the purposes of the substantive matter, was sound.

So this was an error of form, more than substance.

However, there are some differences between the UK GDPR regime, the Part 3 DPA regime and the Part 4 DPA regime, and in different circumstances an error like this could result in an outcome which is wrong, and harmful.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under accuracy, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, human rights, Ireland, judiciary, UK GDPR

Data Protection reform bill – all that? or not all that?

I’ve written an “initial thoughts” analysis on the Mishcon de Reya website of the some of the key provisions of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill:

The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill – an (mishcon.com)

Leave a comment

Filed under adequacy, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, Data Protection Bill, DPO, GDPR, Information Commissioner, PECR, UK GDPR

Data protection nonsense on gov.uk

It feels like a while since I randomly picked on some wild online disinformation about data protection, but when you get an itch, you gotta scratch, and this page of government guidance for businesses – “Get your business ready to employ staff: step by step” – specifically on “Personal data an employer can keep about an employee” certainly got me itching. It starts off sensibly enough by saying that

Employers must keep their employees’ personal data safe, secure and up to date.

This is true (Article 5(1)(f) and part of 5(1)(c) UK GDPR). And the page goes on to list some information can be “kept” (for which I charitably read “processed”) without employees’ permission, such as: name, address, date of birth, sex, education and qualifications, work experience, National Insurance number, tax code, emergency contact details, employment history with the organisation, employment terms and conditions, any accidents connected with work, any training taken, any disciplinary action. All pretty inoffensive, although I’m not sure what it’s trying to achieve. But then…oh my. Then, it says

Employers need their employees’ permission to keep certain types of ’sensitive’ data

We could stop there really, and snigger cruelly, Consent (aka “permission”) as a condition for processing personal data is complicated and quite frankly to be avoided if possible. It comes laden with quite strict requirements. The Information Commissioner puts it quite well

Consent is appropriate if you can offer people real choice and control over how you use their data, and want to build their trust and engagement. But if you cannot offer a genuine choice, consent is not appropriate. If you would still process the personal data without consent, asking for consent is misleading and inherently unfair…employers and other organisations in a position of power over individuals should avoid relying on consent unless they are confident they can demonstrate it is freely given

And let’s consider the categories of personal data the government page thinks employers should get “permission” to “keep”: race and ethnicity, religion, political membership or opinions, trade union membership, genetics [sic], biometrics, , health and medical conditions, sexual history or orientation.

But how quickly would an employer’s wheels grind to a halt if it couldn’t process personal data on an employee’s health “without her permission”? It would be unable to refer her to occupational health if she didn’t “permit” it. It would be unable to keep a record of her sickness absence if she withdrew her consent (consent should be as easy to withdraw as it is to give (see Article 7(3)). During the COVID pandemic, it would have been unable to keep a record of whether she had tested positive or not, if she said she didn’t want a record kept.

It’s nonsense, of course. There’s a whole range of gateways, plus a whole Schedule of the Data Protection Act 2018), which provide conditions for processing special categories of data without having to get someone’s consent. They include pressing social imperatives, like compliance with public health law, and promotion of equality of treatment and safeguarding of children or other vulnerable people. The conditions don’t apply across the board, but the point is that employees’ permission – their consent – is rarely, if ever, required when there is another compelling reason for processing their data.

I don’t really understand what need, what gap, the government page is trying to fill, but the guidance is pretty calamitous. And it is only likely to lead to confusion for business owners and employers, and runs the risk of pitting themselves against each other – with disputes arising – amidst the confusion.

BAH!

Now, that felt better. Like I say, sometimes it’s good to scratch that itch.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under consent, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, Let's Blame Data Protection, UK GDPR

Podcast on UK data protection reforms

My Mishcon de Reya colleague Adam Rose and I have recorded a short (25 minute) podcast on the government’s recent announcement of proposed data protection reforms.

UK Data Reform – what’s being proposed? (mishcon.com)

Leave a comment

Filed under adequacy, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, UK GDPR

Data reform – hot news or hot air?

I’ve written a piece for the Mishcon de Reya website on the some of the key proposals (for our client-base) in today’s data protection reform announcement.

Data protection law reform – major changes, but the (mishcon.com)

Leave a comment

Filed under adequacy, consent, cookies, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, DPO, GDPR, Information Commissioner, international transfers, nuisance calls, PECR, UK GDPR

COVID booster messages and the law

GET BOOSTED NOW Every adult needs a COVID-19 booster vaccine to protect against Omicron. Get your COVID-19 vaccine or booster. See NHS website for details

On Boxing Day, this wording appears to have been sent as an SMS in effect to every mobile telephone number in the UK. The relevant government web page explains that the message is part of the national “Get Boosted Now” campaign to protect against the Omicron variant of COVID-19. The web page also thanks the Mobile Network Operators for “their assistance in helping deliver the vitally important Get Boosted Now message”.

It is inevitable that questions may get raised raised about the legality of the SMSs under data protection law. What is important to note is that, although – to the extent that the sending involved the processing of personal data – the GDPR may apply (or, rather, the UK GDPR) the relevant law is actually the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”). Under the doctrine of lex specialis where two laws govern the same situation, the more specific rules will prevail over more general rules. Put another way, if the more specific PECR can justify the sending of the SMSs, then the sending will also be justified under the more general provisions of UK GDPR.

Regulation 16A of PECR (inserted by a 2015 amendment), provides that where a “relevant communications provider” (in this case a Mobile Network Operator) is notified by a government minister (or certain other persons, such as chief constables) that an “emergency” has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, and that it is expedient to use an emergency alert service, then the usual restrictions on the processing of traffic and location data can be disregarded. In this instance, given the wording on the government website, one assumes that such a notification was indeed made by a government minister under regulation 16A. (These are different emergency alerts to those proposed to be able to be sent under the National Emergency Alert system from 2022 which will not directly involve the mobile network operators.)

“Emergency” is not defined in PECR, so presumably will take its definition here from section 1(1)(a) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 – “an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom”.

The effect of this is that, if the SMSs are legal under PECR, they will also be legal under Article 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of the UK GDPR (on the grounds that processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, and/or necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest).

There is an interesting side note as to whether, even though the SMSs count as emergency alerts, they might also be seen as direct marketing messages under regulations 22 and 23 of PECR, thus requiring the content of the recipient before they could be sent. Under the current guidance from the Information Commissioner (ICO), one might argue that they would be. “Direct marketing” is defined in the Data Protection Act 2018 as “the communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals” and the ICO defines it further by saying that this “covers any advertising or marketing material, not just commercial marketing. All promotional material falls within this definition, including material promoting the aims of not-for-profit organisations”. Following that line of thought, it is possible that the Omicron SMSs were both emergency alerts and direct marketing messages. This would be an odd state of affairs (and one doubts very much that a judge – or the ICO, if challenged on this – would actually agree with its own guidance and say that these SMSs were indeed direct marketing messages). The ICO is in the process of updating its direct marketing guidance, and might be well advised to consider the issue of emergency alerts (which aren’t covered in the current consultation document).

[Edited to add: I don’t think what I say above necessarily covers all the legal issues, and no doubt there are aspects of this that could have been done better, but I doubt very much there is any substantive legal challenge which can be made.]

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under communications data, consent, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, Information Commissioner, PECR, UK GDPR

Gov says “no” to UK GDPR opt-out actions but…

A post by me on the Mishcon de Reya website – the government has declined to bring into operation Article 80(2) of the (UK) GDPR, but does that mean that the Supreme Court will be more likely to uphold the Court of Appeal judgment in Lloyd v Google?

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, DCMS, GDPR, UK GDPR

Start the DSAR countdown (but how?)

A while ago I wrote a piece on the Mishcon de Reya website pointing out that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had silently changed its guidance on how to calculate the “one month” timescale for responding to a subject access request under the General Data Protection Regulation (or “GDPR” – which is now domestic law in the form of the amended retained version of the GDPR, aka “UK GDPR”).

The nub of that piece was that the ICO (following the legal precedents) was now saying that “You should calculate the time limit from the day you receive the request“. Which was a change from the previous position that “You should calculate the time limit from the day after you receive the request “.

I have noticed, however, that, although the ICO website, in its UK GDPR guidance, maintains that the clock starts from the date of receipt, the guidance on “Law Enforcement Processing” (which relates to processing of personal data by competent authorities for law enforcement purposes under part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), which implemented the Law Enforcement Directive) states that the time should be calculated

from the first day after the request was received

It’s not inconceivable (in fact I am given to understand it is relatively common) that a some controllers might receive a subject access request (or other data subject request) which must be dealt with under both the UK GDPR and the Law Enforcement Processing provisions (police forces are a good example of this). The ICO’s position means that the controller must calculate the response time as starting, on the one hand, on the date of receipt, and, on the other hand, on the day after the date of receipt.

And if all of this sounds a bit silly, and inconsequential, I would argue that it is certainly the former, but not necessarily the latter: failure to comply within a statutory timescale is a breach of a statutory duty, and therefore actionable, at least in principle. If the ICO really does believe that the timescale works differently under different legal schemes, then how, for instance can it properly determine (as it must, when required to) under Articles 57(1)(f) and 77(1) of the UK GDPR, or section 51(2) of the DPA, whether there has been a statutory infringement?

Statutory infringements are, after all, potentially actionable (in this instance either with regulatory action or private action by data subjects) – the ICO maintains a database of complaint cases and publishes some of this (albeit almost two years in arrears), and also uses (or may use) it to identify trends. If ICO finds that a controller has made a statutory infringement, that is a finding of potential significance: if that same finding is based on an unclear, and internally contradictory, interpretation of a key aspect of the law, then it is unlikely to be fair, and unlikely to be lawful.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, Information Commissioner, subject access, UK GDPR, Uncategorized

Litigation disclosure != subject access disclosure

I’m not a lawyer, yet alone a Scottish lawyer, but a recent judgment, on data protection matters, from Sheriff A Cubie in the Glasgow and Strathkelvin Sheriffdom has significance beyond Scotland (and, of course, data protection law – by which we mean the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or from 1 January 2021, the UK GDPR, and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) – apply across the UK).

The issue before the court was whether data protection obligations, which might in general militate against disclosure of personal data, override disclosure obligations in general court proceedings. The basic answer, and one that most data protection practitioners and lawyers understand, is that they don’t. Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR makes clear that processing is lawful if it is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which a controller is subject. More specifically, paragraph 5 of Schedule Two to the DPA says that the bulk of the GDPR provisions conferring rights on data subjects and obligations on controllers simply “do not apply to personal data where disclosure of the data is required by an enactment, a rule of law or an order of a court or tribunal, to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from making the disclosure.”

The Sheriff was faced with a situation [which sounds like a line from a Western] of possible contempt of court by an unnamed Scottish Council in social work referral proceedings concerning children. Upon receipt of an application (in Scottish law, a “motion for specification of documents”), which it had not opposed, the Council had disclosed social work records to solicitors for the mother in the proceedings, but subjected the records (apparently having received internal legal advice) to substantial redaction of personal data, of the sort which would have taken place if the records had been required to be disclosed under an Article 15 subject access request.

The Sheriff “invited” a senior Council officer and someone from its legal department to answer his enquiries as to how the redactions came to be made. At that hearing, it transpired that the disclosure exercise had been passed to the Council’s Data Protection Officer to deal with – that officer had sought advice from the Council’s legal department, which advised that the exercise should be treated as if it was redaction for the purposes of a subject access request. Before the court, the Council apologised unreservedly, and announced that it had begun an internal investigation into how it had happened.

Nothing earth-shattering, and this post is not to suggest that sometimes it might be necessary to redact personal data during litigation disclosure, but an interesting observation about the risks of confusing or conflating disclosure regimes.

And I end by noting that the Sheriff himself fell into error: he cites at several points, subject access provisions from part 3 of the DPA. Part 3 deals with law enforcement processing under Directive 2016/680, and has no relevance here. The subject access right emanates from, and is full described in, Article 15 GDPR.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, law enforcement