February 22, 2013 · 5:18 pm

Practice makes perfect

Wirral borough council is on the watch list at the moment. I would really like to send in a good practice squad to Wirral borough council, but I do not have the powers do that. I am not picking on Wirral; it is just an example that comes to mind

So said Commissioner Christopher Graham in evidence to the Justice Committee during a recent one-off session on the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The rather self-contradictory observation that he was not picking on that particular public authority is not the most interesting point about his comments (although it does seem a bit hard on Wirral, when the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland are all also currently subject to formal monitoring for especially poor compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)).

What does strike me, though, is his complaint that he lacks powers to “send in a good practice squad”. Although strictly true, there is an enforcement power which he does have, which equates to the power to send in a “good practice squad”, albeit with the consent of the public authority concerned. To my knowledge, however, this is a power he and his predecessor have never exercised.

Section 47(3) of FOIA says

The Commissioner may, with the consent of any public authority, assess whether that authority is following good practice

 In the ICO’s own guidance on his FOIA regulatory action policies, he says

 An assessment may be conducted with the consent of a public authority. It is designed to determine whether an authority is following good practice – and specifically, to assess its conformity to the codes of practice [made under sections 45 and 46 of FOIA]

A Standard Operating Procedure document (disclosed, ironically enough, by the ICO in response to a FOIA request) suggests that the ICO sees his policy of monitoring FOIA compliance in specific poorly-performing authorities as constituting a s47(3) assessment. However, my feeling is that this does not restrain him from extending his actions under this section to physically sending in “good practice” teams. Certainly the Scottish Information Commissioner sees his equivalent powers under section 43(3) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as a means of conducting such good practice visits, and he does approximately twelve of them a year.

I appreciate that the ICO prefers to take a more informal route towards enforcing FOIA compliance, by means, for example, of monitoring at a distance, or by issuing undertakings (“The culmination of negotiated resolution, [committing] an authority to a particular course of action in order to improve its compliance”). But there is doubt about how seriously some public authorities treat this informal approach. If he really did want to send in “good practice squads” I think he could certainly do so (and if an authority were to refuse consent, it could potentially trigger stronger powers, like practice recommendations and enforcement notices).

2 Comments

Filed under Cabinet Office, enforcement, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, practice assessment

February 21, 2013 · 12:59 pm

We still have judgment here

Mr Justice Tugendhat makes very interesting observations about reserved judgments and open justice,  in a judgment on whether a defendant is in breach of prior undertakings relating to tawdry publications about the parents of Madeline McCann:

The decision not to identify in a reserved judgment a fact or person that has been identified in open court is not a reporting restriction, nor any other derogation from open justice. The hearing of this committal application was in public in the usual way. The decision not to set out everything in a judgment is simply a decision as to how the judge chooses to frame the judgment (¶86)

I have previously written about discussions taking place about the privacy and data protection implications of electronic publication of lists from magistrates’ courts, and I also wrote a thesis (NEVER to see the light of day thank you very much) which attempted in part to deal with the difficulties of anonymisation in court documents. These seem to me to be very urgent, and tremendously difficult, considerations for the subject of open justice in the digital era (the title of the initiative, led by Judith Townend, to “make recommendations for the way judicial information and legal data are communicated in a digital era”).

The judgment continues with Tugendhat J observing that, in previous cases where he has referred to parties by initials in reserved judgments this has sometimes been misinterpreted as his having made an anonymity order. Not true: the proceedings themselves were in open court, but

what happens in court, if not reported at the time, may be ephemeral, and may soon be forgotten and become difficult to recover, whereas a reserved judgment may appear in law reports, or on the internet, indefinitely (¶87)

This is a crucial point. My concern has always been about the permanence of information published on the internet, and the potential for it to be used, and abused, in ways and under jurisdictions, which would make a mockery of, for instance, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and the Data Protection Act 1998.

I haven’t noted the judge’s comments for any particular reason, other than I think they helpfully illustrate some important points, and might provoke some discussion.

1 Comment

Filed under Confidentiality, court lists, Data Protection, Open Justice, Privacy, Rehabilitation of offenders

February 20, 2013 · 1:26 pm

Smeaton v Equifax overturned

The Court of Appeal has overturned what had seemed an important, if controversial, judgment on the legal duties owed by Credit Reference Agencies to those about whom they hold records and issue reports.

I blogged in May last year  about a high court claim for damages under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The claimant, Mr Smeaton, successfully argued that, as a result of processing inaccurate data about his credit history, the Credit Reference Agency (CRA) Equifax was in breach of the fourth data protection principle, and that Equifax’s obligations under the DPA as a data controller meant that it owed a duty of care to Smeaton in tort. Accordingly, damages were owed (to be assessed at a later date).

The case has now been comprehensively overturned in the Court of Appeal. Primarily, the appeal succeeded because the judge’s findings on causation (i.e. had the inaccuracy in Mr Smeaton’s credit record led to the detriment pleaded?) were not sustainable. Lord Justice Tomlinson, giving the lead judgment, was highly critical of the judge’s approach

the judge’s conclusion that the breaches of duty which he identified caused Mr Smeaton loss in that they prevented Ability Records from obtaining a loan in and after mid-2006 is in my view not just surprising but seriously aberrant. It is without any reliable foundation and completely unsupported, indeed contradicted, by the only evidence on which the judge could properly rely (¶11)

That effectively dispensed with the claim for damages, but Equifax, clearly concerned about the implications of the original findings regarding a breach of the DPA and consequent breach of a duty of care, asked the Appeal Court to consider these points as well.

Was there a DPA breach?

Tomlinson LJ held that the procedures which obtained at the time of the alleged DPA breach, regarding the annulment (and communication thereof) of bankruptcy orders, had never been the subject of the expression of any concern by either the Information Commissioner or the Insolvency Service. In the first instance the judge had observed that inaccurate personal data could be “particularly damaging”. Tomlinson LJ did not demur, but said that

it is necessary to put this important principle into context and to maintain a sense of proportion. In the context of lending, arrangements have been put in place to ensure that an applicant for credit should not suffer permanent damage as a result of inaccurate information appearing on his file (¶59)

Those arrangements are described in guidance both published by or approved by the Information Commissioner, and include the fact that, in the event of a failed credit application

[the] lender must tell a failed applicant by reference to the data of which CRA an application was declined, if it was, and the failed applicant, like any consumer, has the right to obtain a copy of his file from a CRA on payment of £2.00

and mistakes can thus be corrected.

Moreover, CRAs must, by reference to the Guide to Credit Scoring 2000, not decline a repeat application “solely on the grounds of having made a previously declined or accepted application to that credit grantor”. This, and other guidance, were inbuilt safeguards against the kind of detriment Mr Smeaton claimed to have suffered. Ultimately

Equifax did take steps to ensure that its bankruptcy data was accurate. It obtained the data from a reliable and authoritative source in the form of the [London] Gazette, it transferred the data accurately onto its data bases from that source and it amended its data immediately upon being made aware that it was inaccurate…the judge was wrong to conclude that Equifax had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of its data (¶81)

Was there a co-extensive duty of care in tort?

Here Tomlinson LJ considered the “traditional three-fold test of foreseeability, proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty” and held comprehensively that there was not. He agreed with counsel for Equifax’s argument that

(1)It is doubtful whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the recording of incorrect data on Mr Smeaton’s credit reference would cause him any loss…
(2)It would also not be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty. In particular, imposing a duty owed to members of the public generally would potentially give rise to an indeterminate liability to an indeterminate class…
(3)It would also be otiose given that the DPA provides a detailed code for determining the civil liability of CRAs and other data controllers arising out of the improper processing of data
(4)Parliament has also enacted detailed legislation governing the licensing and operation of CRAs and the correction of inaccurate information contained in a credit file in the CCA 1974. This provides for the possibility of criminal sanctions, but does not create any right to civil damages. In such circumstances it would not be appropriate to extend the law of negligence to cover this territory (¶75)

The third of these seems to make it clear that the courts will be reluctant to allow for a notion of an actionable duty of care on data controller to process personal data fairly and lawfully. (This is in contrast, interestingly, with the situation in Ireland, whereby a statutory provision (section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1988) states that such a duty of care is owed (at least to the extent that “the law does not so provide”)).

My post on the first instance case has been one of the most-read (it’s all relative, of course – there haven’t been that many readers) so I think it only correct to post this update following the Court of Appeal judgment.

2 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, Information Commissioner, Uncategorized

February 7, 2013 · 9:36 am

Courts, Contempt and Data Protection

Can it be possible for HM Courts and Tribunals Service – who have responsibility for publishing court lists – to publish those same lists in an unlawful way?

Richard Taylor, a blogger and mySociety volunteer uploaded an intriguing blog post recently. Entitled Cambridge Magistrates Court Lists Obtained via Freedom of Information Request it described Richard’s request to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) for

 …the information which would be expected to appear on the full copy of the court list in relation to appearances, hearings, trials etc. currently scheduled to be held in Cambridge Magistrate’s Court [five specified days]

HMCTS, commendably, in Richard’s words (amazingly, in mine), responded to him within six days. The disclosure was, by any standards, extraordinary. Richard had made the request using the whatdotheyknow.com portal. This service means that any disclosure made by a public authority is by default uploaded to the internet for anyone to see. What was uploaded by HMCTS included

 …the identity of victims of crimes people were being charged with, including a girl under 14 who was named in relation to an indecent assault charge

As Richard points out, the anonymity of victims of alleged sexual offences is protected by law. Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SO(A)A) provides that

neither the name nor address, and no still or moving picture, of [a victim of an alleged sexual offence] shall during that person’s lifetime…be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public

These necessary derogations from the principles of open justice cannot extend to complete anonymity. For obvious reasons, the name of a victim of an alleged sexual offence will need to be before a court in the event of a trial. So, the meaning of a “written publication available to the public” does not include (per s6 SO(A)A)).

an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings

It appears that the lists disclosed to Richard would fall into this category. However disclosure of such a document under FOIA, which is taken to be disclosure to the world at large (and, in the case of whatdotheyknow.com effectively is) would extend its “use” so far beyond those particular legal proceedings that it would undermine the whole intention of section of SO(A)A. It seems that HMCTS recognised this, because they subsequently contacted Richard and confirmed that the information was disclosed in error.

We believe the majority of the information in the Court Lists is exempt from disclosure under Section 32 (Court Records) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act. We also believe provision and publication of sensitive personal data may also breach The Data Protection Act.

Well, I hate to be a tell-tale, but this seems to be a tacit admission that the disclosure to Richard was an extremely serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). It was also potentially in breach of SO(A)A and potentially an act of contempt under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA), section 8(4) of which permits publication only of certain information relating to commital proceedings, before a trial, and the names of alleged victims certainly does not fall under that sub-section. But can a court (or at least, a court service) be in contempt of itself by digitally disclosing (publishing) to the world information which it is required otherwise to disclose publicly?

While distinction should be drawn between a “full” list, such as was inadvertently disclosed to Richard, and “noticeboard” lists, habitually stuck up outside the court room, the points raised by this incident exemplify some crucial considerations for the development of the justice system in a digital era. It seems clear that, even if a court were permitted to  this or similar information, the re-publication by others would infringe one or all of the SO(A)A, DPA and MCA. What this means for the advancement of open justice, the protection of privacy rights and indeed the rehabilitation of offenders is something I hope to try to grapple with in a future post (or posts).

3 Comments

Filed under Breach Notification, court lists, Data Protection, Open Justice, Rehabilitation of offenders

January 25, 2013 · 2:41 pm

Public Interest in Empty Buildings

Does the public interest favour publishing lists of vacant properties? No, says the First-tier tribunal. Yes, suggests the launch of the government website “Find Me Some Government Space”.

On 22 January the First-tier tribunal (FTT) handed down judgment in the remitted case of Voyias v IC and Camden Council. Those looking for intelligent insights into the case, and the reasons why it was originally appealed to the Upper Tribunal, and then sent back to the FTT should read the excellent series of posts on the Panopticon blog. I’m here to make a much blunter observation: at the same time a local authority is strongly resisting publishing details of vacant properties, the government appears to be actively promoting similar publication.

At issue  in the FTT was whether the Council should disclose, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), addresses of vacant properties in its area. The information had been withheld on the basis of the FOIA exemption at section 31(1)(a)

disclosure…would, or would be likely to, prejudice…the prevention or detection of crime

The FTT had little difficulty (having been bound by the Upper Tribunal to consider indirect consequences of disclosure on the prevention of crime) in finding the exemption was engaged, holding that

releasing the requested information would increase squatting and that there would be an increase in the instances of various types of criminal activity directly connected to it*

When it came to the balance of public interest factors (section 31 being a qualified FOIA exemption) the only real factor pleaded in favour of disclosure was

The need to ensure that the Council takes appropriate measures to bring empty property back into use

And the FTT, at paragraph 55, afforded it “relatively small weight”.

Against disclosure were the following (not all of them accepted by the FTT, it should be said)

The inherent public interest in the prevention of all crimes…; The cost of securing properties vulnerable to squatting and repairing damage resulting from it, whether that cost falls on the private or public purse; The cost of evicting squatters; The potential detrimental impact on those directly affected by criminal damage; The impact on the community in the vicinity of a squatted property; The problems faced by Council staff having to deal with squatting and its consequences; The impact on police resources; The direct financial cost caused by property stripping.

Fine. FTT found the exemption engaged and that the public interest favoured non-disclosure of empty, unused properties. As John Murray has pointed out to me, this is somewhat surprising given that it also appears that many other local authorities have had little concern about disclosing similar information.

And one wonders why, if such prejudice would or would clearly be likely to arise, the government two days later launched  a website called Find Me Some Government Space. Launching it Chloe Smith, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, (what a grand title) said

…we will have a number of properties both owned and rented that we need to do more with. Not only will this website help to save government money but we will see new opportunities, jobs and growth in local economies as new life is brought into empty, unused properties. [emphasis added, naturally]

These sentiments were, oddly, not reflected by the then Housing Minister Grant Shapps, when the initial FTT ruling was made.He said it was a “bizarre decision that flies in the face of common sense” and that publishing details of empty properties “in other areas has led to the numbers of squats doubling”.

Now – and I concede they are not residential – within seconds, using “Find Me Some Government Space”, I’d found a list of 30 properties for sale within a 20km radius of Camden Council’s offices. It’s not clear if they’re currently empty and unused, but the words of the Minister imply that those are the sort of buildings which will be on “Find Me Some Government Space”. Moreover, as the government clearly thinks bringing new life into empty, unused properties is connected to the creation of jobs and economic growth, will they be encouraging councils to disclose the very type of information this Council sought so hard to avoid disclosing?

*At the time of the request, squatting in residential properties was not a criminal offence, something that has now changed with the enactment of section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.

Leave a comment

Filed under Freedom of Information, Information Tribunal

Tagged as

January 25, 2013 · 8:54 am

Sony Make Believe?

The ICO has “fined” Sony £250k for its Playstation Network breach.

My swiftly-grabbed breakfast coffee yesterday morning was interrupted by an emailed press release from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) informing us that a civil Monetary Penalty Notice (MPN) in the sum of £250,000 had been served on Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited by the ICO. It was such an important case it was celebrated by a rare foray into video by the ICO’s David Smith. This was the outcome of investigations into a data security breach in April 2011 which had, in the ICO’s words, the effect of

compromising the personal information of millions of customers, including their names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth and account passwords. Customers’ payment card details were also at risk

An MPN is served under section 55A of the Data Protection Act 1998. One can be served where the ICO determines that there has been a serious contravention of the Act, of a kind of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress, and the data controller knew or ought to have known that there was a risk a contravention of this type would occur, but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

There is a right of appeal against both the MPN itself, and the amount, to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). Rather to my initial surprise Sony swiftly announced they were lodging an appeal. I had noticed that there were very large parts of the ICO’s formal MPN document that were blacked out. See

cropped-untitled.jpg

and

cropped-untitled.jpg

Even figures such as the estimated worldwide number (in millions) of PS Network users were redacted. I had a suspicion that some sort of negotiation might have taken place between the ICO and Sony, whereby the former would willingly redact everything the latter asked for, if the latter accepted their punishment. The announcement that they would appeal showed how I should be wary of my suspicious nature*.

Sony say

the ICO recognises Sony was the victim of “a focused and determined criminal attack,” that “there is no evidence that encrypted payment card details were accessed,” and that “personal data is unlikely to have been used for fraudulent purposes” following the attack on the PlayStation Network.

This seems to miss the point that section 55A does not require the ICO to determine that harm has occurred, only that the contravention was likely to cause substantial damage – or distress. As the ICO points out, thousands of people had their personal details (names, address, dates of birth and account password)s were compromised. The risk of identity theft existed, and, as the ICO points out, continues to exist. However, a question does arise as to how serious the breach was.

Last week the FTT handed down judgment in an unsuccessful appeal of a previous MPN served on Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust (for a detailed analysis of that case, see Robin Hopkins’ piece on the Panopticon blog) . As a result of this we now know a bit more both about the ICO’s procedures in serving MPNs and the FTT’s likely approach to any further appeal. We know (paragraphs 37 and 38) that the FTT will conduct in effect a de novo hearing of the facts, and permit itself, where appropriate, to substitute its own view for the ICO’s, but that it will be likely to afford a degree of deference to the ICO’s views, given his expertise in DPA matters. We know (paragraph 39) that the FTT could increase the amount of the MPN. We also know that £250,000 marks the border between what the ICO sees as a “very serious” type of breach and the “most serious” type. One suspects Sony will be asking the FTT to consider whether this breach, which potentially affected a huge number of people, but which did not involve sensitive personal data, was as serious as the ICO treated it.

Personally, I think it was – the sheer numbers, and fact that this data is still out there, perhaps being sold and traded to crooks and spammers, make it so. Although the FTT could take a different view, Sony could well be living in the land of make believe.

One final point. Some have suggested that the ICO has traditionally been unwilling to take on the large private sector organisations when it comes to data protection enforcement. The suspicion has been that he is reluctant to risk lengthy and costly challenges. With this action, the ICO gives (at least a little bit of) lie to that. It would be a real shame if a lengthy and costly challenge ensues. We don’t want the ICO to whisper “I told you so”, do we?

*Actually, my suspicious nature makes me wonder if they will ultimately pursue the appeal. Although it will cost them nothing, this isn’t about cost, but reputation, and do Sony really want to risk another day of bad headlines about their data security, in the event that they lose the appeal?

UPDATE: 12 July

The First-tier Tribunal listings show that Sony withdrew their appeal on 8 July. We don’t know the reason why, but I wonder if I was right after all?

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

January 8, 2013 · 3:48 pm

When is a working day not a working day?

If you made an FOI request over the Christmas period, be aware of a strange anomaly regarding time for compliance

Everyone knows that the time for compliance by a public authority with a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is twenty working days. Section 10 of FOIA says

a public authority must comply with [a request for information made under] section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt

A “working day” means (by s10(6))

any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom. [emphasis added]

This means that, even when a request is made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, to a English, Welsh or Northern Irish public authority, under FOIA (which in relevant part only applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland – Scotland has its own Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002), the existence of a Scottish bank holiday during the relevant period effectively extends the time for compliance by one day.

The 2nd of January is a bank holiday in Scotland.

So, think twice before you chase a public authority this month about a request you think is one day overdue.

9 Comments

Filed under Freedom of Information, Uncategorized

Tagged as

January 4, 2013 · 4:01 pm

Opt Me Out! Please

Do some barriers to opting out of direct marketing risk a breach of the Data Protection Act?

I’m trying to open a credit card account: long interest-free periods are useful for those who are careful with their money. They’re also useful for people like me.

My application was going fine until the point at which I was asked to agree to their policy on the use of my information for marketing purposes. This says

[Generic Financial Services Company] may inform me of special offers, products and services, either by letter, telephone or e-mail. If I am a new GFSC customer and I do not wish to receive marketing material by letter, telephone or email, or any combination of these I can write to you at GFSC, Marketing opt-out, FREEPOST XXXX

Thanks GFSC, but I don’t have to send you snail mail to opt-out of marketing. Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) simply says I can serve a notice in writing requiring you to cease, or not to begin, processing my personal data for the purposes of direct marketing. “In writing” includes, by virtue of section 64 of the DPA, email.

So I agreed to the terms of their marketing statement (I didn’t have to do that by snail mail, of course – I just ticked a box) and then very cleverly emailed them serving a section 11 notice requiring them not to being marketing, and asking them to confirm receipt of the notice.

However, I’ve now received a friendly email saying

Thank you for your message. The email service you have used is not 100% secure and we’re unable to reply to you using this service.  Emails can be intercepted which is why we provide secure messaging within our Online Banking facility.  I’m unable to access your account details and provide the information you require. I want to answer your query, but in a secure environment…

I didn’t “require” any specific information (other than an acknowledgement of receipt) and I was not wishing to discuss any matters which required secure email correspondence (I had freely provided my name and address). And I don’t have account details, because they haven’t accepted me as a customer yet.

So now I’m in limbo. I agreed to receive direct marketing, by ticking an online box, but immediately served a section 11 notice which they presumably won’t pay any attention to.

However, in strict terms the fact I got a reply to my email confirms that my notice was received. It may not mean I won’t get direct marketing, but it does probably mean that any such marketing would be sent to me unlawfully, in breach of section 11 of the DPA, as well as the first, second and sixth principle in Schedule One, and (therefore) section 4(4).

Having said all this I’m not sure I should name this nation wide financial institution, because I still want the service, and my principles don’t quite extend to withdrawing my application under these circumstances. I’m left wondering what I should do?

2 Comments

Filed under Data Protection

Tagged as

December 18, 2012 · 8:08 am

A Fairy Tale of Wilmslow

A clunkingly fatuous fairy tale for Christmas

Once upon a time, in a land far away, there were villages where the villagers were told by the king to look after some valuable possessions of other people, and though they tried hard to protect these items, they had limited money with which to do so.

Most villagers did everything they could to protect these precious items, but sometimes the village elders overlooked the risks, or decided to spend some of the villages’ meagre earnings on other important things. And sometimes some of the stupid villagers took risks, or other villagers, thought they were not stupid, still took stupid risks. This all meant that, just sometimes, the valuable items got lost, or given to the wrong people, or maybe even stolen.

The Sheriff of the Land was a good and strong man, and he too was worried about these precious items. He encouraged village elders to tell him when something happened to the items. When he thought the villages had really been bad, or unwise, he would fine them, and so they had even less money. And the villages would try very hard to improve, and they would listen to all the Sheriff’s edicts, and try to do what was right.

Most people in the Land, and in the villages themselves, accepted this: they knew that it was important that the sheriff showed everyone he was strong, and wouldn’t tolerate loss of or risk to the precious items.

However, in the towns, there were people who had also been asked by the king to look after others’ valuable possessions. Some of these people were very irresponsible, and they often lost the items, or had them stolen, and, what was worse, they wouldn’t confess this to the sheriff. And even though the sheriff knew about this, he mostly allowed the lawlessness to continue, because it was so rife, and because some of the townspeople were very powerful.

And so it was that the villagers found it hard to bear when the Sheriff issued public proclamations that said how badly they – even those in villages which had never done anything wrong – protected the precious items. They found it especially hard to bear because it was their own precious items which were being treated with so little care in the Outlaw Towns.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said yesterday:

“We are fast approaching two million pounds worth of monetary penalties issued to UK councils for breaching the Data Protection Act, with nineteen councils failing to have the most straightforward of procedures in place

“It would be far too easy to consider these breaches as simple human error. The reality is that they are caused by councils treating sensitive personal data in the same routine way they would deal with more general correspondence. Far too often in these cases, the councils do not appear to have acknowledged that the data they are handling is about real people, and often the more vulnerable members of society.

“The distress that these incidents would have caused to the people involved is obvious. The penalties we have issued will be of little solace to them, but we do hope it will stop other people having to endure similar distress by sending out a clear message that this type of approach to personal data will not be tolerated.

“There is clearly an underlying problem with data protection in local government and we will be meeting with stakeholders from across the sector to discuss how we can support them in addressing these problems.”

2 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, Information Commissioner, satire

December 17, 2012 · 5:05 pm

MPs and Data Protection Offences, part etc etc

In which I bore again by banging on about the ICO’s apparent non-action against MPs who might be committing Data Protection offences

I’ve blogged on this before. To recap: MPs have the same obligations as any other data controller under section 17 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of their processing of personal data. Most do so, some appear not to. Processing personal data without a notification or a suitable exemption constitutes a criminal offence under section 18 of the DPA.

In my previous posts I’ve question why the ICO appears to take a lenient approach to MPs’ legal obligations. Maybe I’ve made more of it than I should, and I’m pleased to see that the majority I named in my second post on the subject have now put things right.

However, two of the names in that previous list continue not to have an entry on the ICO register. There may be a reason for this (the list may not, for instance, have been updated) but it suggests that Jim Shannon MP has processed personal data without an appropriate registration since his last notification expired on 29 November 2010 and Pat Doherty MP has similarly processed personal data since 20 January 2011.

It’s not as though the ICO never prosecutes for this offence. He announced on twitter today that there had been a successful prosecution of two spamming scumbags owners of a marketing company for non-notification (both received £2000 fines). While reading this, I noticed that there had also been, on 28 November, a successful prosecution (she pleaded guilty) of a barrister for the same offence. For reasons of mitigating circumstances she received an absolute discharge. However, the ICO reports that

the magistrate warned that those whose profession is to prosecute people for failing to comply with the law must meet their legal obligations

If this magistrate can warn lawyers to observe their legal obligations, because they (act for those who) prosecute offences, where is the warning from the prosecutor to those who actually make the laws?

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, Information Commissioner

Tagged as ,