News from the Mishcon de Reya website on data protection concerns arising from criminal barristers’ dispute with the MoJ
Category Archives: UK GDPR
No, 43% of retail businesses have NOT been fined for CCTV breaches
A bizarre news story is doing the rounds, although it hasn’t, as far as I can see, hit anything other than specialist media. An example is here, but all the stories contain similar wording, strongly suggesting that they have picked up on and reported on a press release from the company (“Secure Redact”) that undertook the research behind the story.
We are told that
research reveals that 43% of UK retailers reported that they had been fined for a violation of video surveillance GDPR legislation…Of these retailers, 37% reported paying an equivalent of 2% of their annual turnover, 30% said the fine amounted to 3% of annual turnover, and 15% said the fine was 45% [sic] of annual turnover…A staggering 33% of those fined also had to close stores as a result of enforcement action
The research was apparently based on a survey of 500 respondents in retail businesses (50% in businesses with less than 250 employees, 50% in businesses with more than 250).
What is distinctly odd about this is that since GDPR has been in force in the UK, including since it has become – post-Brexit – UK GDPR, there has been a sum total of zero fines imposed by the Information Commissioner in respect of CCTV. 43% of retail businesses have not been fined for CCTV infringements – 0% have.
You can check here (direct link to .csv file) if you doubt me.
It’s difficult to understand what has gone wrong here: maybe the survey questions weren’t clear enough for the respondents or maybe the researchers misinterpreted the data.
Whatever the reasons behind the stories, those in the retail sector – whilst they should certainly ensure they install and operate CCTV in compliance with GDPR/UK GDPR – should not be alarmed that there is a massive wave of enforcement action on the subject which threatens to put some of them out of business.
Because there isn’t.
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.
Filed under CCTV, GDPR, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice, UK GDPR
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.
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)
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.
Filed under adequacy, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, UK GDPR
ICO to keep income from UK GDPR fines
This is a significant development – the Information Commissioner will now be able to keep up to £7.5m a year from penalties, to cover their litigation and debt recovery costs:
https://www.mishcon.com/news/ico-to-keep-money-from-uk-gdpr-fines
Filed under Data Protection, DCMS, GDPR, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice, UK GDPR
GDPR reprimands for Cabinet Office, UKIP, CPS & ors
A piece by me just uploaded to the Mishcon de Reya website, on an FOI disclosure to me of the most recent reprimands under GDPR/ UK GDPR issued by the Information Commissioner
ICO reprimands Cabinet Office, UKIP, CPS and others for (mishcon.com)
