Category Archives: Information Commissioner

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 · 12:58 pm

Photographing sleeping people – data protection implications

Is it ever OK to photograph strangers on a train? asks Nell Frizzell, in a balanced, and nuanced, article in the Guardian

one new public transport phenomenon has recently crashed into my consciousness. Tumblr accounts dedicated to secretly photographing, uploading and then critiquing fellow commuters, have spored like bed bugs on a bus seat.

She correctly points out that domestic law, even to the extent that it gives effect to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, does not prevent, in general terms, the act of photographing an individual without their consent.

However, the practice she describes, of uploading photographs to social media sites, does engage, and, I would argue, breach, the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

An image of a person is potentially (and in these specific cases almost certainly) their personal data (particularly bearing in mind the observation by the Court of Appeal in Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 that for information to be personal data it “should have the putative data subject as its focus”). The DPA contains an exemption (at section 36) from all the provisions of the DPA for processing of personal data by an individual for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) (the “domestic purposes exemption”). It is possible, although arguable, that the mere taking (and no more) of a photograph of someone on a train, would be caught by this exemption. However, once such a photograph is uploaded to the internet, the exemption falls away. This is because the European Court of Justice held, in a 2003 ruling that binds all inferior courts, that personal data posted on the internet could not be caught by the domestic purposes exemption (Lindqvist (Approximation of laws) [2003] EUECJ C-101/01).

That said, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which regulates the DPA in the UK, has shown reluctance to accept this authoritative statement of the law regarding the online processing of personal data. I have previously written about this, in the context of the ICO’s social media DPA guidance, which sidesteps (or, rather, ignores) the point. However, it might be more difficult for a domestic court (bound by the authority of Lindqvist) to ignore it in the same way, in the event that any case came before one for determination.

But therein lies the (lack of) rub. Uploading a photograph, without consent, of someone sleeping on a train is unfair, and therefore in breach of the first Data Protection Principle (because no Schedule 2 condition exists which permits the processing). But I struggle to imagine the chain of events which could give rise to a claim (for instance, the data subject would have to contact the photographer, or the site, to require them to cease processing on the grounds that doing so was causing, or was likely to cause, substantial damage or substantial distress, and the photographer, or site, would have to refuse).

So, ultimately, even though I’d argue that these sites, and those who upload to them, breach the DPA, the unwillingness of the ICO to exercise jurisdiction, and the unlikelihood of any legal claim emerging, mean that they can probably continue with impunity, unfairness notwithstanding.

As photographer Paul Clarke said in an excellent blogpost on the subject earlier this year

Sticking to rigid rules of law won’t help us very much. This might feel (it does to me) like gross intrusion on privacy. But being offensive is not enough to make something an offence.

6 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, human rights, Information Commissioner, Privacy, social media

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 , ,

October 3, 2013 · 2:34 pm

Two more years for Chris Graham?

I think one mark of a true information rights nerd is whether they read minutes of meetings at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which are published, with a generally admirable commitment to transparency, on their website.

While browsing some recent minutes (of the Management Board meeting of 22 July) I noticed something interesting, which I wasn’t aware of (and haven’t seen anyone else pick up on?). Under a heading of “Major issues affecting the ICO” is

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed the Government’s intention to recommend to HM The Queen that Christopher Graham is reappointed as Information Commissioner [IC] for a period of two years following his current tenure ending in June next year.

The IC is a Crown appointment and his or her tenure is set at five years (paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 of the Data Protection Act 1998) but, by virtue of paragraph 2(5) he or she may be reappointed, provided he or she is not over 65, or has not already served for fifteen years. The reappointment of Christopher Graham (born 1950) will (if it happens) take him to that retirement age of of 65.

This is hardly shock news: all three of Graham’s predecessors as IC (formerly “Data Protection Registrar”) were reappointed after their initial terms of office, and he has, on most objective analyses, performed well in office: he got rid of the appalling backlog of Freedom of Information cases he inherited, and has been an effective stern-faced enforcer of data protection breaches. What he hasn’t done, yet, is see the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation – the updating of the creaking 18-year-old current European data protection regime. But, given the apparently interminable wrangling about that instrument, one wonders whether an extra two years, starting in June 2014, will even help him achieve that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner

Tagged as ,

October 3, 2013 · 12:35 pm

Unintended FOI consequences

A nice little example of how a Freedom of Information (FOI) request can sometimes bring about an unexpected change, and advance a cause which has little to do with FOI.  Although in this instance I’m undecided whether this was a good thing or not.

On 3 January this year the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued a decision notice in respect of two requests for information made to Thames Valley Police (TVP) relating to

an incident in which the complainant’s driveway was blocked by the vehicle of someone he believes was visiting TVP headquarters

The ICO was satisfied, on the correct test of the balance of probabilities that TVP did not hold this information.

Nonetheless, the requester appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights), which has just issued a decision, in the form of a Consent Order disposing of the proceedings. The Schedule to the Consent Order explains

Thames Valley Police will give full and reasonable consideration to the reinstatement of 6 monthly liaison meetings with residents living in the vicinity of TVP HQ South with the objective of avoiding any unreasonable impact of operational activities on local residents

In consequence of this (and the agreement of the ICO) the request and the appeal have been withdrawn by the requester. So, a satisfactory outcome for the parties was achieved (although one notes that if the meetings are not arranged to the satisfaction of the requester, he will submit a further FOI request about the original incident!).

Of course, it would be have been preferable if this compromise could have been agreed in February 2011, when the requests first started. And a large amount of public money has been expended on something which is only very loosely, if at all, related to the aim of FOI (as stated in the explanatory notes to the Act): to provide a right of access to recorded information held by public authorities.

Leave a comment

Filed under Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal

Tagged as ,

September 29, 2013 · 5:56 pm

A million data breaches?

Is it realistic for the ICO to expect all SMEs to encrypt hardware? And if those SMEs don’t, is it realistic to expect the ICO to enforce against what must be mass non-compliance?

Accurate figures for annual thefts and losses of laptops in the UK are not easy to come by – perhaps the most commonly-cited figure is the estimated 1 million from Sony’s Vaio Business Report 2013. On any analysis, though, it’s a relatively common occurrence.

A large proportion of these will be laptops containing personal data of people other than the owner of the device. And in many cases the device, or part of it, will be used for business purposes, often by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Personal data processed solely for domestic purposes is outwith the obligations of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), but any personal data processed for business purposes is caught by the Act, and the person or business processing that data is likely to be a data controller.

As data controller, they will have an obligation inter alia to take “Appropriate technical and organisational measures …against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data” (Principle 7 of Schedule One, DPA). A serious contravention of this obligation, of a sort likely to cause serious damage or serious distress, can lead to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) serving the data controller with a Monetary Penalty Notice (MPN), under section 55A, to a maximum of £500,000.

And so it was this week that the ICO served Jala Transport Ltd, an oddly-named loans company, with an MPN of £5000 after

a hard drive containing financial details relating to all of the sole proprietor’s approximately 250 customers…[was stolen] from the business owner’s car while it was stationary at a set of traffic lights in London

The hard drive was in a case, with documents and some cash, and has still not been recovered.

Despite one’s possible distaste for the nature of the business involved (it may be difficult to muster much sympathy for a loans company), this case raises some interesting points, specifically for small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) but also in general.

The MPN itself reveals that the business did not have a backup of the hard drive. This is a ridiculous oversight, when secure storage is simple, and cheap. But

it was taken home at the end of each working day for business continuity purposes and to reduce the risk of damage or theft

However, by not

closing the car window and placing the briefcase in the boot of his car or out of sight

this unsuccessful but probably well-meaning attempt at data security -and a business continuity plan – became an aggravating factor.

However, what really did for the proprietor was, “crucially”, that although the laptop was password-protected, it was not encrypted, and this led the ICO to repeat previous warnings about the need for encryption in these circumstances

We have continued to warn organisations of all sizes that they must encrypt any personal data stored on portable devices, where the loss of the information could cause clear damage and distress to the customers affected…if the hard drive had been encrypted the business owner would not have left all of their customers open to the threat of identity theft and would not be facing a £5,000 penalty following a serious breach of the Data Protection Act

Several questions are raised by this case, and this approach by the ICO. Firstly, encryption, for individual devices, is not necessarily straight-forward, and carries its own risks. This is not to say that attempts should not be made at either full disk encryption or file/folder encryption, but not all SMEs necessarily have the time or expertise to explore this effectively. Secondly, one notes that one of the reasons the MPN was imposed was because the ICO felt that the serious contravention of the DPA was of a sort likely to lead to serious damage in the form of identity theft. It was a very similar argument that the Information Tribunal recently refused to accept as being a likely consequence of another serious contravention, when it upheld Scottish Borders Council’s recent MPN appeal. £5000 is not a huge amount, and the time and expense of pursuing an appeal might be too much, but it will be interesting to see if one is lodged.

Finally – following on from the point that encryption of single standalone devices isn’t necessarily straightforward – one has to wonder how many of those estimated one million lost and stolen laptops were encrypted, and, of those that weren’t, how many contained personal data which required the relevant data controller to observe the security obligations of the DPA. Jala Transport appears to have taken the admirable, but perhaps ill-conceived, decision to report the theft to the ICO itself (and may now be regretting that decision).

If all the data controllers of those thousands and thousands of laptops lost or stolen annually reported the loss to the ICO, how many would have to own up to lack of encryption, and be liable to a similar or possibly larger MPN? And could the ICO possibly cope with the workload?

Leave a comment

Filed under Breach Notification, Data Protection, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, monetary penalty notice, Uncategorized

September 28, 2013 · 8:44 am

It’s our Right to Know, Mr ICO

On 29 August the Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO) served a monetary penalty notice (MPN) of £100,000 on Aberdeen City Council. MPNs can be served on a data controller under section 55A of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) for a serious contravention of the Act of a sort likely to cause serious damage or serious distress. In this instance, the ICO explained

sensitive information relating to social services involvement with several individuals [was] published online. The information included details relating to the care of vulnerable children.

The circumstances under which this happened were

a council employee accessed documents, including meeting minutes and detailed reports, from her home computer. A file transfer program installed on the machine automatically uploaded the documents to a website

Many people in the field of information rights have concerns that there is a significant lack of understanding on the part of many about the risk of inadvertently disclosing personal data on the web. In view of this, I though I would simply ask the ICO, and the Council, what website was involved, in order to inform my understanding. So I tweeted

What “website” were the files uploaded to?

I reminded the ICO and the Council on several occasions about this, and pointed out it was a valid request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOI(S)A), even though I had really only wanted a quick factual reply. The Council have asked me to contact them separately to make the FOI(S)A request, and I’m aware the Scottish Information Commissioner takes a different view on tweeted requests to her counterpart for the rest of the UK, so I’ve banged in a request at WhatDoTheyKnow. The ICO, by contrats, did treat my tweet as a valid request (although I got no acknowledgment of this, contrary to their good practice guidance) and responded yesterday on the twentieth working day, with a link to their disclosure log

Those who know me will be unsurprised to know that I don’t accept the refusal, and also unsurprised to know that, on International Right to Know Day 2013 I’ve submitted a crashingly pompous request for ICO to conduct an internal review. Here it follows, in all said crashing pomposity:

Please review your refusal to disclose information.

On 29 August you served a Monetary Penalty Notice on Aberdeen City Council

“after a council employee accessed documents, including meeting minutes and detailed reports, from her home computer. A file transfer program installed on the machine automatically uploaded the documents to a website, publishing sensitive information about several vulnerable children and their families, including details of alleged criminal offences”

I asked, on 30 August, “What ‘website’ were the files uploaded to?”

You have refused to disclose, claiming the exemption at section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which provides an exemption “if disclosure [of the information] (otherwise than under this Act) by the public authority holding it…is prohibited by or under any enactment”. You say disclosure is prohibited, because “the information was provided to the ICO in confidence as part of our regulatory activities” and that the provisions of section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 forbid disclosure. Section 59(1) says

“No person who is or has been the Commissioner, a member of the Commissioner’s staff or an agent of the Commissioner shall disclose any information which—

(a)has been obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under or for the purposes of the information Acts [of which FOIA is one],

(b)relates to an identified or identifiable individual or business, and

(c)is not at the time of the disclosure, and has not previously been, available to the public from other sources

unless the disclosure is made with lawful authority”

I am happy to concede that a) and b) are met here, but not c). This is because section 59(2) explains what “with lawful authority” means. Firstly, and largely as an aside, section 59(2)(a) says that a disclosure is made with lawful authority if

“the disclosure is made with the consent of the individual or of the person for the time being carrying on the business”

I am surprised you do not feel that, in your role as a public authority but also as the regulator for Freedom of Information, it would be prudent and transparent simply to ask the Council whether it consents. Nonetheless, on a strict reading of the law, I concede that you do not have an obligation to do so.

Secondly (and I note you do not even address this important provision), 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).

I hope you can reconsider your decision.

best wishes

1 Comment

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, FOISA, Freedom of Information, human rights, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice, transparency

Tagged as , ,

September 20, 2013 · 6:51 am

Must Try Harder

So, I managed to get a piece run on the Guardian Public Leaders network on the continuing incidents of or risks of exposure of sensitive personal data in pivot tables. I tried to argue that those in the know probably know about these risks, and that those not in the know don’t. I suggested the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the government could do more to alert the latter.

Although I got nice and positive feedback from friends/colleagues/fellow professionals, there appears to have been very little interest. Clearly it’s not a subject that interests lay people (or rather, it’s probably a subject which actually repels lay people). But that was rather my point: as long as the relevant regulators and policy-makers don’t take sufficient steps to issue warnings and guidance these and similar breaches of data security will continue to happen.

What I’m slightly surprised at is the lack of any response from the ICO. I noticed that Tim Turner asked the ICO twitter account if they had a response to the piece, but, unless it was off-line, he appeared to get no response. And I asked their press office, again, with no reply (maybe the press office was the wrong place to ask?).

In the article I also called on government departments to do more. That’ll be my next move. The problem of inadvertent internet disclosure of sensitive data, normally through ignorance of technology, continues, and it goes broader than pivot tables. As public authorities, in particular, are being required to open up more and more data to promote transparency and economic growth, this is going to become more and more serious. We can’t pretend the gulf between those ambitions and the technological knowledge of some of those doing the “opening up” is a minor problem. Authorities need guidance, and, where appropriate, warnings, and these need to be targetted at the right people within organisations. The ICO and government cannot always rely on, say, data protection officers to do this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Breach Notification, Data Protection, Information Commissioner, transparency

August 30, 2013 · 5:30 pm

ICO – no Code of Practice for data protection and the press

On the 12th of August the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced that, following a period of consultation, it would not – contrary to previously-stated intentions – be issuing a Code of Practice on Data Protection and the Press. The proposed Code had been in response to Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations that the ICO produce

comprehensive good practice guidelines and advice on appropriate principles and standards to be observed by the press in the processing of personal data

As the ICO’s Steve Wood says in the blogpost

Leveson did not stipulate a code but we proposed it as a possible vehicle for the guidance

Indeed they did, stating at the time that it was not

the ICO’s intention to purport to set ethical standards for journalists, or to interfere with the standards which already apply under relevant industry guidance, such as the Editors’ Code of Practice, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, and the BBC Producers’ Guidelines. Nevertheless, the existing industry guidance does not consider the requirements of data protection law in any detail, and the ICO’s code will complement existing industry standards by providing additional coverage of this issue

However, the latest announcement – that the ICO is “looking to produce a guidance document” rather than carrying through with the issuing of a Code of Practice – is accompanied by the publishing of a summary of consultation responses to the draft Code of Practice. In fairness to the ICO, those who responded appeared not to want a Code, and, as any public authority will be aware, a consultation in name only (e.g. one with a predetermined outcome) is unlikely to be a lawful one. We are not told specifically who these responses were from, but that they were from “several media companies, individuals, regulators and representative bodies” (although there were only 16 responses overall, a figure which perhaps shames us all, or, alternatively, supports a view that not that many people were particularly aware of or bothered about the consultation). Seven responses specifically rejected the idea of a Code of Practice, with some concerns being

a code of practice implies a new set of rules or regulations;
risk of the ICO becoming a ‘mainstream de facto regulator of the press’;
risk of a proliferation of codes; and
risk of potential confusion with existing codes such as the Editors’ Code.

After pausing to note that the now-proposed ICO guidance will apparently be issued in draft (for further consultation) before the end of the year, which is a long, long way from meeting Leveson’s recommendation that any guidance be implemented within six months of his report,  it might be helpful to look at just why some respondents might have been unhappy with a Code of Practice, as opposed to “mere” guidance.

As is well-known, there is a very broad exemption, at section 32, from most of the obligations of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) where:

(a)the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material,
(b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c)the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes [emphasis added]

This, broadly, means that, as long as personal data is processed with a view to journalistic publication (note: not that it has to be published) it is exempt from effectively all of the DPA (although not the 7th “security” principle) as long as the press body “reasonably believes” publication would be in the public interest. This has generally been taken to mean that it will be extremely difficult for a data subject to enforce her rights against, or for the ICO to regulate the activities of, the press. And, indeed, instances of successful DPA claims, or successful enforcement, against the press, are rare (privacy cases against the press, where they have included DPA claims, have tended to see the latter sidelined or dropped in favour of meatier claims in tort – see e.g. Douglas v Hello [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (where the DPA claim did succeed in the first instance, but only resulted in nominal damages) and Campbell v MGN [2002] EWCA Civ1373 (where, by contrast, the section 32 defence succeeded)). As Leveson LJ says

the effect of the development of the case law has been to push personal privacy law in media cases out of the data protection regime and into the more open seas of the Human Rights Act [page 1070 of Leveson Report]

 As everyone knows, the press kicked back strongly against parliament’s proposal of a Royal Charter for the press (that proposed Charter itself being the result of a rowing back by the political parties from Leveson’s proposal for some form of direct statutory underpinning of any regulatory scheme (“Guaranteed independence, long-term stability, and genuine benefits for the industry, cannot be realised without legislation”)). Both proposed Charters (the parliamentary-backed one and the Pressbof-backed one ) are to be considered by the Privy Council.

What has perhaps not been so widely-known, or widely-understood was that an ICO Code of Practice, if it had been designated by the Secretary of State (by means of an Order pursuant section 32(3)(b) of the DPA), would itself have constituted a form of statutory underpinning. This is because a Code designated in this way could have been taken into account by a court, or by the ICO, when determining whether personal data had been processed (for the special purposes) by the data controller in the reasonable belief that it had been in the public interest. The now-proposed “mere” guidance will not have the same status.

This might seem a minor point, and perhaps it is (bear in mind that there are already other Codes of Practice designated pursuant to section 32(3)(b), including the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice) but, although we don’t know specifically who responded to the ICO’s consultation, it is safe to say that those who did included in their number organisations strongly opposed to (and alive to the threat of) any form of what they perceive to be statutory regulation of the press.

In this post I draw heavily on previous posts by Chris Pounder, on his Hawktalk blog, and if, as he suggested earlier this year, the then-proposed ICO Code raised the prospect of enhanced protection for ordinary data subjects, it is perhaps the case that the dropping of the proposal means no such enhanced protection.

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, human rights, Information Commissioner, journalism, Leveson

Tagged as , , ,

August 23, 2013 · 6:56 am

Pivot tables and databreaches

About a year ago I first became aware of reports of disturbing inadvertent disclosures of personal data (often highly sensitive) by public authorities who had intended only to disclose anonymous and/or aggregate data. These incidents were occurring both in the context of disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and in the context of proactive disclosure of datasets. Mostly they were when what had been disclosed was not just raw data, but the spreadsheet in which the data was presented. Spreadsheet software is often very powerful, and not all users necessarily understand its capabilities (I don’t think I do). By use of pivot tables data can be sorted, summarised etc, but also, from the uninitiated or unwary, hidden. If the person who created or maintained a spreadsheet containing a pivot table is not involved in the act of publicly disclosing it it is possible that an apparently innocuous disclosure will contain hidden personal data.

Clearly such errors are likely to constitute breaches – sometimes very serious breaches – of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) Those of us who were aware of a number of these inadvertent breaches were also aware that, if public authorities were not alerted to the risk a) the practice would continue and b) potentially large numbers of “disclosive” datasets would remain out in the open (in disclosure logs, on WhatDoTheyKnow, in open data sets etc). But we were also aware that, if the situation was not managed well and quietly, with authorities given the opportunity to correct/withdraw errors, inquisitive or even malicious sorts might go trawling open datasets for disclosures which could potentially be very damaging and distressing to data subjects.

It was with some relief, therefore that, following an earlier announcement by WhatDoTheyKnow, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) finally gave a warning, and good guidance, on 28 June (although this relief was tempered by finding out, via Tim Turner, that the ICO had known about, and apparently done nothing about, the problem for three years). At the same time the ICO announced that it was “actively considering a number of enforcement cases on this issue”.

It appears that, according to an announcement on its own website, Islington Council is the first recipient of this enforcement. The Council says it has

accepted a £70,000 fine from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after a mistake led to personal data being released

after it

responded to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for information including the ethnicity and gender of people the council had rehoused. The response, in the form of Excel spreadsheet tables, included personal information concealed behind the summary tables

Fair play to Islington for acknowledging this and agreeing immediately to pay the monetary penalty notice. And if some of the other reported breaches I heard about were as bad as they sounded £70,000 will be at the lower end of the scale.

(thanks to @owenboswarva on twitter for flagging this up)

UPDATE:

The ICO has now posted details of the MPN, and this clarifies that the disclosure was made on WhatDoTheyKnow and was only identifed when one of their site administrators noticed it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Breach Notification, Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice, transparency

Tagged as , ,