Category Archives: 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

UK GDPR Resource

My firm Mishcon de Reya have created a version of the UK’s post-Brexit version of GDPR as there isn’t yet an official version. What’s more, we’ve added in links to the Recitals, and made it freely available.

The announcement is here. The actual UK GDPR is here.

Ain’t we kind?

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, GDPR, UK GDPR

Search and (don’t) destroy

Martin Lewis’s Money Saving Expert (MSE) site reports that over £1m is apparently held by Highways England (HE) in respect of Dartford Crossing pre-paid online accounts (Freedom of Information requests were apparently used to establish the amount). It is of course by no means uncommon for money to lie dormant in money accounts – for instance, banks across the world hold fantastic sums which never get claimed. MSE itself suggests elsewhere that the total amount in the UK alone might be around £15bn – but what these FOI requests to HE also revealed is an approach to retention of personal data which may not comply with HE’s legal obligations.

People appear to have received penalty charges after assuming that their pre-paid accounts – in credit when they were last used – would still cover the crossing charge (even where the drivers had been informed that their accounts had been closed for lack of use). MSE reports the case of Richard Riley, who

had been notified by email that his account would be closed, but he’d wrongly assumed it would be reactivated when he next made the crossing (this is only the case if you cross again within 90 days of being notified). On looking into it further, Richard also realised he had £16 in his closed account

However, HE apparently explained to MSE that

…it’s unable to reopen automatically closed accounts or automatically refund account-holders because it has to delete personal data to comply with data protection rules.

This cannot be right. Firstly, as the MSE article goes on to explain, if someone suspects or discovers that they have credit in a closed Dartford Crossing account, they can telephone HE and “any money will be paid back to the debit or credit card which was linked to the account. If this isn’t possible, a refund will be issued by cheque.”

So HE must retain some personal data which enables them to confirm whose money it is that they hold. But if it is true that HE feels that data protection law requires them to delete personal data which would otherwise enable them to refund account-holders when accounts are closed, then I fear that they are misreading two of the key principles of that law.

Article 5(1)(e) of the UK GDPR (the “storage limitation principle”) requires that personal data be “kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed” (emphasis added), and Article 5(1)(c) ( the “data minimisation principle”) requires that personal data be “limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed” (emphasis added). Both of these make clear that where personal data is still needed for the purposes for which it is processed, then it can (and should) be retained. And when one adds the point, under Article 5(1)(c), that personal data should also be “adequate” for the purposes for which it is processed, it becomes evident that unnecessary deletion of personal data which causes a detriment or damage to the data subject can in itself be an infringement.

This matter is, of course, on a much lower level of seriousness than, for instance, the unnecessary destruction of landing cards of members of the Windrush Generation, or recordings of witnesses in the Ireland Mother and Baby Homes enquiry, but it strikes me that it is – in general – a subject that is crying out for guidance (and where necessary enforcement) by the Information Commissioner. Too many people feel, it seems, that “data protection” means they have to delete, or erase or destroy personal data.

Sometimes, that is the worst thing to do.

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, adequacy, Data Protection, Information Commissioner, Let's Blame Data Protection, UK GDPR

ICO and Article 27 representative liability

The ever-entertaining (but more importantly, ever-illuminating) Tim Turner has made available a recording of a webinar he did recently on the subject of representatives under Article 27 of the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR. Such representatives are required to be designated by controllers or processors who are outside the relevant jurisdiction, but who are subject to the extra-territorial provisions of Article 3(2) of EU GDPR or UK GDPR (thus, under Article 27 EU GDPR, a company outside the EU but offering goods or service to, or monitoring the behaviour of, data subjects in the EU, must appoint a representative in the EU, and under Article 27 UK GDPR, a company outside the UK but offering goods or service to, or monitoring the behaviour of, data subjects in the UK, must appoint a representative in the UK).

Tim’s webinar deals, in part, with what is expected of representatives, but also touches on their potential liability, and he points to – but doesn’t actually address – a remarkable assertion on the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

The EDPB’s view is that supervisory authorities are able to initiate enforcement action (including fines) against a representative in the same way as they could against the controller or processor that appointed them.

I describe this as remarkable, because it seems to completely misrepresent the guidance (of the European Data Protection Board) to which it refers (and links).

The issue of representative liability is an important one – many companies offer a contracted service under which they will act as a representative, and a commercial evaluation of such a service will inevitably need to consider whether being a representative exposes oneself to the possibility of regulatory action. Recital 80 of the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR says “The designated representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor” and much debate is there to be had on what it means. But the EDPB’s view is pretty clear, and it’s nothing like the view attributed to it by the ICO

The GDPR does not establish a substitutive liability of the representative in place of the controller or processor it represents in the Union. It should however be noted that the concept of the representative was introduced precisely with the aim of facilitating the liaison with and ensuring effective enforcement of the GDPR against controllers or processors that fall under Article 3(2) of the GDPR. To this end, it was the intention to enable supervisory authorities to initiate enforcement proceedings through the representative designated by the controllers or processors not established in the Union. This includes the possibility for supervisory authorities to address corrective measures or administrative fines and penalties imposed on the controller or processor not established in the Union to the representative… [emphasis added]

(It goes on to say that a representative will be directly liable only to the extent that it is infringing its direct obligations – namely to provide information to a supervisory authority under Article 58(1)(a) of GDPR, and to maintain a record of processing activities under Article 30.)

Whether the ICO’s assertion represents what it thinks a proper reading of the UK GDPR (including recital 80) should be, is an interesting question. The EDPB is, of course, no part of the UK GDPR regulatory and legal scheme, so ICO is free to disregard its views. What it shouldn’t be free to do though, really, is to attribute to the EDPB a position totally at odds with what the EDPB actually says.

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, EDPB, EU representative, GDPR, Information Commissioner, 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