Tag Archives: DPA

November 29, 2013 · 5:07 pm

ICO must disclose Motorman journalists’ names

The ICO has been ordered to disclose the names of some of the journalists referred to in “What Price Privacy” as having engaged the services of rogue private investigator Steve Whittamore

In April 2006 the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published “What Price Privacy?” on what it described as “the unlawful trade in personal information”. The report revealed

evidence of systematic breaches in personal privacy that amount to an unlawful trade in confidential personal information

Those breaches were potential criminal offences under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and the report – which drew on the findings of documentation seized during Operation Motorman, arising from the activities of private investigator Steve Whittamore, said

Among the ‘buyers’ are many journalists looking for a story. In one major case investigated by the ICO, the evidence included records of information supplied to 305 named journalists working for a range of newspapers

In December 2006 the six-month follow-up report “What Price Privacy Now?” was published. This gave further details about the 305 journalists mentioned in the first report, and broke the data down into “Publication”, “Number of transactions positively identified” and “Number of journalists/clients using the services”.

And of course, this trade in personal information formed the basis of the first module (“The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour”) of part one of Lord Justice (as he was then) Leveson’s inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

In 2011 a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the ICO, for (1) “the number of transactions per journalist of each of the 305 identified journalists for each of the 32 identified publications” and (2) the journalists’ identities. The first request was refused by the ICO, on the basis that it would require a search through 17000 documents, and, therefore, section 12 of FOIA provided a statutory cost limit which meant it did not have to comply. Having been given these apparent facts the requester dropped his first request, but pursued the second. This was also refused, on the basis that the information was exempt under section 40(2) and section 44 of FOIA (the latter by virtue of the statutory bar on disclosure at section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)), in both cases because disclosure would be an unfair and unlawful disclosure of personal data of the journalists involved.

Because the ICO is the regulator of FOIA, a complaint about its handling of a FOIA request falls to be determined by the same office (a statutory arrangement which was to be described as an “unusual, and unsatisfactory, feature” of the law by the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT)). Accordingly, the office (describing itself as “the Commissioner”, as distinct from the “ICO”, which was the authority refusing the request) issued a Decision Notice which held that

the ICO correctly withheld the information by virtue of section 40(2). He has also found that the information could also be correctly withheld by virtue of section 44(1)

This decision was appealed to the FTT, which has today, after what has clearly been complex and strongly argued litigation, handed down three judgments (1, 2, 3) (two of which were preliminary or interim rulings, publication of which has been held back until now) which are, taken together, extraordinary, both for their criticism of the ICO, and for the outcome.

Taken as a whole the judgments find that, regarding some of the journalists named in the information held by the ICO, the balance of the public interest in receiving the information outweighs the legitimate interest of an individual to protect his or her privacy.

The FTT found that the information wasn’t sensitive personal data (which is afforded a greater level of protection by the DPA). This is at first blush rather surprising: section 2(2) of the DPA provides that sensitive data will be, inter alia, “data consisting of information as to…the commission or alleged commission by [the data subject] of any offence”. However, the FTT found that, although the information

does contain evidence that the investigator [Whittamore] engaged by the journalist committed, or contemplated committing, criminal activity. And, self-evidently, it discloses that the investigator received some form of instruction from the journalist. But there is no suggestion…that the journalist had instructed the investigator to use unlawful methods or that he or she had turned a blind eye to their adoption or, indeed, whether he or she had in fact expressly forbidden the investigator from doing anything that was not strictly legal [para 11 of third ruling]

The FTT had also invited submissions from the parties on the significance to the instant case of some of the passages from the Leveson inquiry, and, having received them, took note from those passages of

the issues of impropriety (which, while very possibly not involving criminality on journalists’ part, is nevertheless serious) and corporate governance in the context of the privacy rights of the [journalists]. We believe that, together, they give rise to a very substantial interest in the public knowing the identities of those who instructed the investigators [para 18 of third ruling]

But also tending towards favouring disclosure in the public interest was Leveson’s suggested criticisms of the ICO

We also give some weight to the public interest in knowing more about the information which was in the possession of the ICO and which the Leveson Report suggested it failed adequately to pursue [para 18 of third ruling]

The FTT noted the interests of the journalists, for instance that they would have had an expectation that details of their day-to-day professional activities would remain confidential, and that the Commissioner had argued that

publication of information indicating that they had engaged the services of the investigators concerned would be so unfair as to outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure [para 19 of third ruling]

but the FTT also noted, in effect, that the journalists involved must have had some idea of what was going on when they engaged Whittamore

it must have been well known within the profession what types of information could be obtained with the help of investigators, even if the means of obtaining it were not fully understood. The rights of individuals under data protection laws would also have been widely known at the time. In those circumstances those engaging the particular services…should have known that they ran the risk of becoming involved in behaviour that fell short of acceptable standards. This seriously dilutes the weight to be attributed to their privacy rights and leads us to conclude that the balance tips in favour of disclosure [para 19 of third ruling]

Accordingly, and, unless there is an appeal (Iwould be surprised if there isn’t) the names of some of the journalists who engaged Whittamore must be disclosed.

Other matters – criticism of ICO

In its preliminary ruling (November 2012) the FTT makes some trenchant criticism of the ICO’s handling of the requester’s first request (even though, as the requester did not pursue it, it was outwith the FTT’s jurisdiction). The refusal on costs grounds had been made, based upon a statement that the information requested had not been recorded in a database. Yet less than two months later the Leveson inquiry began, and, at that inquiry, evidence presented by the ICO effectively, in the FTT’s view, contradicted this statement

 we do not understand how the Appellant could have been given such a misleading response to the First Information Request…as a result of the misleading information given to the Appellant, he was not able to pursue his request…We only became aware of the ICO’s error after the Appellant drew our attention to the evidence presented to the Leveson Inquiry regarding the Spreadsheets. We assume (and certainly hope) that those in the Commissioner’s office handling this appeal had not become aware sooner [para 28 of first ruling]

The ICO clearly did not take well to this criticism, because the second interim ruling records that

the Commissioner has complained about part of the decision which he believes includes unfair criticism of his office and has asked us to correct the impression given [para 3 of second ruling]

but the FTT stood firm, saying

We continue to believe that our criticism was justified. The Appellant was told that he was wrong to assume that any database of information existed that could be interrogated…However, it is now known that the ICO held the Spreadsheets at the time…[and although the information in them] may not have provided the Appellant with precisely the information he requested, but it would have come close. Against that background we believe that the ICO was open to criticism for asserting, without further qualification, that it would be necessary to search through the 17,000 documents in order to respond to the request. [para 6 of second ruling]

5 Comments

Filed under Confidentiality, Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, journalism, Leveson, Privacy

Tagged as , , ,

November 26, 2013 · 4:56 pm

The weakest link

I am a big fan of Bruce Hallas‘s The Analogies Project, and I’ve been promising him for a while that I will send him a proposal for a privacy analogy for possible inclusion in the Project. For the time being, and because I’m suffering from a bit of writer’s block on that piece, I’ll post a little – and obvious – analogy here.

The recent news that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had required Great Ormond Street Hospital  for Children NHS Foundation Trust (“GOSH”) to sign an undertaking (to improve data protection compliance) made me think of the famous quotation by William James from The Varities of Religious Experience

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link

The ICO noted that, at GOSH,

Although data protection training was in place, it was not required for temporary members of staff

By their nature, temporary staff are often subject to different procedures and obligations (or lack thereof) to permanent staff. It is, consequently, all too easy for data controllers to ask temporary to handle personal data without applying the appropriate safeguards which they would always apply where permanent staff are concerned.

Data security and data protection within an organisation can, indeed, be seen as a chain. By that I don’t mean that it should tightly bind or shackle the organisation. Rather, what I mean is that – ideally – all parts should link together, and no part be isolated: thus, data, and risks, are appropriately contained.  But if a weak link is in place, the potential exists for the whole chain to be broken.

This is not profound, and I strongly suspect it’s not even a new analogy, but I think it’s one worth making.

And it gives me the chance to quote William James for the second time today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Information Commissioner

Tagged as ,

November 20, 2013 · 3:19 pm

THIS is the purpose of subject access requests

In a recent blogpost the rather excellent Bilal Ghafoor (who goes by the handle of “FOIKid”, although I note he’s now extended this to “FOI (and DP) Kid”, evidently having rather belatedly discovered the joys of data protection) asked “What is the purpose of subject access requests?“. He drew attention to the potential discord between approaches by the Information Commissioner and by the courts (in cases such as Durant  v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746) to such requests (made under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)).

In a comment on that post I argued that the Court of Appeal in Durant was perhaps not as out-of-step with, at least, the EC data protection Directive 95/46/EC as is sometimes thought

it’s important to note that the Court of Appeal were keen to stress the fact that the Act gives effect to the Directive, and that the Directive and its recitals have a “primary objective” to “protect individuals’ fundamental rights, notably the right to privacy and accuracy of their personal data held by others…

This particular primary objective is illustrated quite starkly by the news from the Press Gazette that comedian/journalist Mark Thomas discovered, through submitting a subject access request, that his name is on a “domestic extremist database”:

police held a file of seven pages containing more than 60 individual items of intelligence…”a bizarre list of events monitored by the police, lectures given, panels attended, even petitions I have supported…the police have monitored public interest investigations in my case since 1999″

Thomas says he is taking legal action to have his name removed. This will be an interesting case if it reaches court, joining a line of cases where people try to effect removal of records from police systems.

What is also interesting though is that Thomas, and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), are encouraging journalists to submit subject access requests to the police. As Thomas says

I know of other NUJ members on the database….Which is why I am asking NUJ members to take action. If your work brings you into contact with the police whether covering riots or climate camp, from Plebgate to the NSA, then the police could have you on their database

and the NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet adds

we want as many other members as possible to find out what information the Met is holding

In answer to Bilal’s question, then, I think that this – the investigation of how an arm of the UK state monitors and records the activities of the free press – is a vitally important example of what the purpose is of subject access requests.

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, police, Privacy, surveillance

Tagged as , ,

November 20, 2013 · 7:47 am

Data Protection concerns and Article 6

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides inter alia that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing”. An interesting case in the Upper Tribunal shows how failure to comply with tribunal rules (in this case The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (“the TPR”) ) can render tribunal proceedings unfair and – arguably – in breach of Article 6(1). And although the case was not dealing substantively with an “information rights” matter, data protection played a small part.

This was a successful appeal, in which the Upper Tribunal held there had been a material error of law by the FTT. Upper Tribunal Judge Wright’s basis for permitting the appeal had been

that it seems arguable from the papers before me that the appeal was decided by the First-tier Tribunal without [the appellant] having had sight of the HMRC’s appeal response or the documents it relied on

and this was accepted by the respondent, HMRC.

It appears that HMRC had declined to comply with Rule 24(5) of the Rules (that it must provide a copy of the response and any accompanying documents to each other party at the same time as it provides the response to the Tribunal) because of “data security issues”…”because it was concerned that [the appellant] was not living at the address he was relying on”. It had conveyed its intention not to comply with Rule 24(5) in a letter to the FTT, but had not referred to any other Rule which permitted the action, and, although the letter sought directions from a judge there was no evidence

either on the Upper Tribunal file or the First-tier Tribunal file – to indicate either (a) that this letter was ever put before a Judge of the First tier-Tribunal, or (b) that directions were issued either requiring disclosure or precluding it, or (c) that the appeal response and evidence was ever sent to [the appellant] before the appeal was decided on 23.04.12

Accordingly, HMRC erred in law in not providing the appeal response and evidence, and the FTT, in not addressing this, made a material error of law in coming to its decision.

The Upper Tribunal judge also noted that HMRC’s concerns about data security could well have been met by section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which provides an exemption from the bars elsewhere in the DPA against disclosure of personal data if the “disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by order of the court”). As the judge observed, “those words would seem to encompass rule 24 of the TPR”.

Lawyers and practitioners (and indeed litigants) should be aware that data protection concerns regarding disclosure of evidence, or serving of required papers, should not get in the way of tribunals’ overrriding objectives to deal with cases fairly and justly, because if they do, a potential breach of parties’ Article 6 rights may occur. They should also make sure (as should, I suspect, tribunal clerks) that letters seeking directions are put before a judge.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, human rights, Upper Tribunal

Tagged as

October 11, 2013 · 4:06 pm

The Moanliness of the Long-distance Runner

Another in the Let’s Blame Data Protection series, in which I waste a lot of energy on something not really worth the effort

The Bournemouth Daily Echo reports that

Hundreds of disgruntled runners who took part in the inaugural Bournemouth Marathon Festival have accused event organisers of withholding information by failing to provide full race results.

and, with rather dull predicability, there’s a familiar apparent culprit

GSi Events Ltd, the team behind the BMF, has published the top ten runners in the various age categories, but is refusing to publish all the results on the grounds of data protection.

But does data protection law really prevent publication of this sort of information? The answer, I think, is “no”, and the reason for this is tied to issues of fairness and consent

The first data protection principle, in Schedule One of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) says that personal data (broadly, information relating to an identifiable individual) must be “processed” (publication is one form of processing) fairly and lawfully.

The concept of fairness is not an easy one to grasp or define, but helpfully the DPA provides a gloss on it, which, to paraphrase, is that if people are properly informed about how their data is going to be processed (who is doing the processing, and for what purpose)  then a key element of “fairness” is met. The Information Commissioner’s Privacy Notices Code of Practice explains

A privacy notice should be genuinely informative. Properly and thoughtfully drawn up, it can make your organisation more transparent and should reassure people that they can trust you with their personal information

The first data protection principle goes on to say that (in particular) personal data shall not be processed at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act is met (and Schedule 3, in the case of higher-category sensitive personal data). One of those conditions is

The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

“Consent” is not defined in the DPA, but it is given a definition in the EC Data Protection Directive, to which the DPA gives domestic effect. The Directive says that consent

shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed

“Specific” and “signifies” are generally taken to mean that implied consent is not valid in this context, (although the practice of implying consent to processing is widespread). Nonetheless, it seems clear that, with a privacy notice, sensibly drafted, the organisers of the Bournemouth Marathon could easily have said to those registering to race “your race result/time will be published, unless you object”. When one looks at the actual privacy notice, however, such a term is absent. 

I suppose that means one could argue that, under the current privacy notice, publishing the race details would be in breach of the DPA. I suppose I could also construct a counter-argument to that to the effect that publication is necessary in pursuance of legitimate interests of the race organisers (for instance to show that it was a real flipping race) when balanced against the legitimate interests of the racers.

But ultimately, come on, it’s just silly to blame data protection: the vast, vast majority of people take part in a marathon knowing that it’s a public event, where they’ll gather plaudits or attract ridicule. Any expectation of privacy of race results is effectively non-existent.

Publish the damn race results, take the infinitesimal risk of someone complaining (a complaint which no one, i.e. the Information Commissioner and the courts, will take seriously or be able to offer a remedy to) and sort your privacy notice out for next year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Let's Blame Data Protection

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 , ,

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 , ,

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 · 2:00 pm

Contributing to society?

Why are proponents of care:data resorting to rudeness about those who are not as convinced as they are?

When I attended the launch of MedConfidential in April of this year I was largely ignorant of the proposals to amass patient data by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) under the banner of care:data. I was concerned by what I heard, and I remain so: details were unclear and in many cases remain so, regarding what data will be gathered, and how, and for what purposes, and what arrangements will be to allow third party access to it, and whether or to what extent it will be anonymised, and whether patients’ consent will be sought, or assumed, or ignored.

What I did see, and was greatly impressed by, was a large group of people, from various backgrounds and roles, coming together, mostly on a purely voluntary basis (for instance, I took a day’s leave to attend), to discuss the implications of this.

The centralising and use of patient confidential data raises questions of profound importance, which don’t have easy answers: such as to what extent should people waive an expectation of privacy in order – for instance – to further medical research? These are issues which led two of my favourite bloggers to come to (digital) blows recently.

Yet earlier today I read an otherwise sensible piece on the subject (I am not saying I agree with it) by the high-profile columnist Polly Toynbee, which talked about her receiving letters from people who ask her to

investigate the dark forces planting cameras and microphones in their walls: they think I’m part of the conspiracy when I suggest this is a usually curable delusion, and their doctor is probably not part of the plot

I fail to see the relevance of this reference to people with a diagnosis of apparent paranoid schizophrenia, unless it is to draw an analogy by insinuation with

those not clinically ill [among whom] there is a growing trend to fear Big Brother and the state

This is nasty stuff, and leads one to wonder why she feels the need to resort to such a rhetorical device.

Someone who liked Toynbee’s post was Tim Kelsey, NHS National Director for Patients and Information, and former government “czar” for Transparency and Open Data. He described it as “seminal” on twitter. I’m sure Tim finds the constant questioning of the care:data plans irritating: his tweets are often replied to by people who are not as convinced as he is that it is unequivocally a Good Thing. An example of this irritation was his response to an observation by Calderdale councillor James Baker. James tweeted, in response to Tim’s “seminal” tweet

I don’t think using people’s data for research purposes without informed consent is ‘good for science’

This is unexceptional, and a fair comment. Tim’s reply* was certainly not

you can object and your data will not be extracted and you can make no contribution to society

I think that to suggest that someone who might object (in the context of a worrying lack of, er, transparency, about the details of care:data) to the extraction of their highly sensitive medical data is making “no contribution to society” is extraordinarily unfair, and, as James pointed out in reply

It’s an offensive thing to say to an elected representative who contributes a lot to society…It’s also using trying to use guilt and shame to persuade someone to partake in medical research. Unethical

I couldn’t agree more.

UPDATE:

*It appears the tweet has now been deleted. Tim did reply to James saying

offence not intended – I meant contribution to health improvement thru sharing non PID

but there’s been no explanation or apology for that original tweet

20130823-174459.jpg

3 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, NHS, Privacy, transparency

Tagged as