Data protection: three developments to watch

January 15th, 2015 by Robin Hopkins

Panopticon likes data protection, and it likes to keep its eye on things. Here are three key developments in the evolution of data protection law which, in Panopticon’s eyes, are particularly worth watching.

The right to be forgotten: battle lines drawn

First, the major data protection development of 2014 was the CJEU’s ‘right to be forgotten’ judgment in the Google Spain case. Late last year, we received detailed guidance from the EU’s authoritative Article 29 Working Party on how that judgment should be implemented: see here.

In the view of many commentators, the Google Spain judgment was imbalanced. It gave privacy rights (in their data protection guise) undue dominance over other rights, such as rights to freedom of expression. It was clear, however, that not all requests to be ‘forgotten’ would be complied with (as envisaged by the IC, Chris Graham, in an interview last summer) and that complaints would ensue.

Step up Max Moseley. The BBC reported yesterday that he has commenced High Court litigation against Google. He wants certain infamous photographs from his past to be made entirely unavailable through Google. Google says it will remove specified URLs, but won’t act so as to ensure that those photographs are entirely unobtainable through Google. According to the BBC article, this is principally because Mr Moseley no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to those photographs.

The case has the potential to be a very interesting test of the boundaries of privacy rights under the DPA in a post-Google Spain world.

Damages under the DPA

Second, staying with Google, the Court of Appeal will continue its consideration of the appeal in Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) in February. The case is about objections against personal data gathered through Apple’s Safari browser. Among the important issues raised by this case is whether, in order to be awarded compensation for a DPA breach, one has to establish financial loss (as has commonly been assumed). If the answer is no, this could potentially lead to a surge in DPA litigation.

The General Data Protection Regulation: where are we?

I did a blog post last January with this title. A year on, the answer still seems to be that we are some way off agreement on what the new data protection law will be.

The latest text of the draft Regulation is available here – with thanks to Chris Pounder at Amberhawk. As Chris notes in this blog post, the remaining disagreements about the final text are legion.

Also, Jan Philipp Albrecht, the vice-chairman of the Parliament’s civil liberties committee, has reportedly suggested that the process of reaching agreement may even drag on into 2016.

Perhaps I will do another blog post in January 2016 asking the same ‘where are we?’ question.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

How to apply the DPA

January 15th, 2015 by Robin Hopkins

Section 40 of FOIA is where the Freedom of Information Act (mantra: disclose, please) intersects with the Data Protection Act 1998 (mantra: be careful how you process/disclose, please).

When it comes to requests for the disclosure of personal data under FOIA, the DPA condition most commonly relied upon to justify showing the world the personal data of a living individual is condition 6(1) from Schedule 2:

The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

That condition has multiple elements. What do they mean, and how do they mesh together? In Goldsmith International Business School v IC and Home Office (GIA/1643/2014), the Upper Tribunal (Judge Wikeley) has given its view. See here Goldsmiths. This comes in the form of its endorsement of the following 8 propositions (submitted by the ICO, represented by 11KBW’s Chris Knight).

Proposition 1: Condition 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA requires three questions to be asked:

(i) Is the data controller or the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed pursuing a legitimate interest or interests?

(ii) Is the processing involved necessary for the purposes of those interests?

(iii) Is the processing unwarranted in this case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject?

Proposition 2: The test of “necessity” under stage (ii) must be met before the balancing test under stage (iii) is applied.

Proposition 3: “Necessity” carries its ordinary English meaning, being more than desirable but less than indispensable or absolute necessity.

Proposition 4: Accordingly the test is one of “reasonable necessity”, reflecting the European jurisprudence on proportionality, although this may not add much to the ordinary English meaning of the term.

Proposition 5: The test of reasonable necessity itself involves the consideration of alternative measures, and so “a measure would not be necessary if the legitimate aim could be achieved by something less”; accordingly, the measure must be the “least restrictive” means of achieving the legitimate aim in question.

Proposition 6: Where no Article 8 privacy rights are in issue, the question posed under Proposition 1 can be resolved at the necessity stage, i.e. at stage (ii) of the three-part test.

Proposition 7: Where Article 8 privacy rights are in issue, the question posed under Proposition 1 can only be resolved after considering the excessive interference question posted by stage (iii).

The UT also added this proposition 8, confirming that the oft-cited cases on condition 6(1) were consistent with each other (proposition 8: The Supreme Court in South Lanarkshire did not purport to suggest a test which is any different to that adopted by the Information Tribunal in Corporate Officer).

Those who are called upon to apply condition 6(1) will no doubt take helpful practical guidance from that checklist of propositions.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Campaigning journalism is still journalism: Global Witness and s.32 DPA

December 23rd, 2014 by Peter Lockley

In an important development in the on-going saga of Steinmetz and others v Global Witness, the ICO has decided that the campaigning NGO is able to rely on the ‘journalism’ exemption under s.32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

The decision has major implications for journalists working both within and outside the mainstream media, not least because it makes clear that those engaged in campaigning journalism can potentially pray in aid the s. 32 exemption. Importantly, it also confirms that the Article 10 right to freedom of expression remains a significant right within the data protection field, notwithstanding recent developments, including Leveson and Google Spain, which have tended to place privacy rights centre-stage (Panopticons passim, maybe even ad nauseam).

Loyal readers will be familiar with the background to the Global Witness case, for which see original post by Jason Coppel QC.

In brief: Global Witness is an NGO which reports and campaigns on natural resource related corruption around the world. Global Witness is one of a number of organisations which has been reporting on allegations that a particular company, BSG Resources Ltd (“BSGR”), secured a major mining concession in Guinea through corrupt means. A number of individuals who are all in some way connected with BSGR (including Benny Steinmetz, reported to be its founder) brought claims against Global Witness under the DPA. The claims included a claim under s. 7 (failure to respond to subject access requests); s. 10 (obligation to cease processing in response to a damage and distress notification); s. 13 (claim for compensation for breach of the data protection principles) and s. 14 (claim for rectification of inaccurate data). Significantly, Mr Steinmetz alleged, amongst other things, that because he was personally so closely connected to BSGR, any information about BSGR amounted to his own personal data. If successful, the claims would have the effect of preventing Global Witness from investigating or publishing further reports on the Guinea corruption controversy.

Global Witness’s primary line of defence in the High Court proceedings was that all of the claims were misconceived because it was protected by the ‘journalism’ exemption provided for by s. 32 of the DPA. After a procedural spat in March (Panopticon report here), Global Witness’s application for a stay of the claims under s. 32(4) DPA was allowed by the High Court. The matter was then passed to the ICO for a possible determination under s.45 DPA. (In summary, such a determination will be made if the ICO concludes, against the data controller, either: (a) that the data controller is not processing the personal data only for the purposes of journalism or (b) it is not processing the data with a view to future publication of journalistic material).

In fact, the ICO declined to make a determination under s. 45. Moreover, he decided that, with respect to the subject access requests made by the claimants, Global Witness had been entitled to rely on the exemption afforded under s. 32. With respect to the latter conclusion, the ICO held that there were four questions which fell to be considered:

(1) whether the personal data is processed only for journalism, art or literature (s.32(1))

When dealing with this question, the ICO referred to his recent guidance Data Protection and journalism: a guide for the media, in which he accepted that non-media organisations could rely on the s.32 exemption, provided that the specific data in question were processed solely with a view to publishing information, opinions or ideas for general public consumption (p.30). He went on to conclude that this requirement could be met even where the publication is part of a wider campaign, provided that the data is not also used directly for the organisation’s other purposes (e.g. research or selling services). The ICO was satisfied that this condition was met for the data in question.

(2) whether that processing is taking place with a view to publication of some material (s.32(1)(a))

It is apparent from the decision letter that Global Witness was able to point to articles it had already published on the Simandou controversy, and since the controversy was on-going, to show it intended to publish more such articles. The ICO was satisfied that, in the circumstances, this second question should be answered in the affirmative.

(3) whether the data controller has a reasonable belief that publication is in the public interest (s.32(1)(b))

The ICO emphasised that the question he had to ask himself was not whether, judged objectively, the publication was in the public interest, but rather whether Global Witness reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. In the circumstances of this case – small NGO shines a spotlight on activities of large multinational in one of the world’s poorest countries amid allegations of serious corruption – he readily accepted that Global Witness held such a belief, particularly as the data related to the data subjects’ professional activities, for which they in any event had a lower expectation of privacy than in relation to their private lives.

(4) whether the data controller has a reasonable belief that compliance is incompatible with journalism. (s.32(1)(c))

Again, the focus here was on Global Witness’ reasonable beliefs. The ICO accepted that Global Witness had reasonable concerns that complying with the subject access requests which had been made by the claimants would prejudice its journalistic activity in two ways:, first, by giving the data subjects advance warning of the nature and direction of Global Witness’ investigations, which could be used to thwarting effect and, second, by creating an environment in which the organisation’s sources might lose confidence in Global Witness’ ability to protect their identities.

The decision will no doubt substantially reassure campaigning and investigative journalists everywhere. Unsurprisingly, it has been widely reported in the media (see e.g. Guardian article, Times article and FT article here). Notably, the FT reports that the claimants are asserting that they intend to challenge the decision. We will have to wait until the New Year to discover whether these assertions translate into action and, if they do translate into action, what form that action will take.

Anya Proops of 11KBW acts for Global Witness.

Peter Lockley

Monetary penalty for marketing phonecalls: Tribunal upholds ‘lenient’ penalty

December 16th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

A telephone call made for direct marketing purposes is against the law when it is made to the number of a telephone subscriber who has registered with the Telephone Preference Service (‘TPS’) as not wishing to receive such calls on that number, unless the subscriber has notified the caller that he does not, for the time being, object to such calls being made on that line by that caller: see regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, as amended (‘PECR’).

The appellant in Amber UPVC Fabrications v IC (EA/2014/0112) sells UPVC windows and the like. It relies heavily on telephone calls to market its products and services. It made nearly four million telephone calls in the period May 2011 to April 2013, of which approximately 80% to 90% were marketing calls.

Some people complained to the Information Commissioner about these calls. The Commissioner found that the appellant had committed serious PECR contraventions – he relied on 524 unsolicited calls made in contravention of PECR. The appellant admitted that it made 360 of the calls. The appellant was issued with a monetary penalty under section 55A of the Data Protection Act 1998, as incorporated into PECR.

The appellant was issued with a monetary penalty to the value of £50,000. It appealed to the Tribunal. Its appeal did not go very well.

The Tribunal found the appellant’s evidence to be “rather unsatisfactory in a number of different ways. They took refuge in broad assertions about the appellant’s approach to compliance with the regulations, without being able to demonstrate that they were genuinely familiar with the relevant facts. They were able to speak only in general terms about the changes to the appellant’s telephone systems that had been made from time to time, and appeared unfamiliar with the detail. They had no convincing explanations for the numerous occasions when the appellant had failed to respond to complaints and correspondence from TPS or from the Commissioner. The general picture which we got was of a company which did as little as possible as late as possible to comply with the regulations, and only took reluctant and belated action in response to clear threats of legal enforcement.”

The Tribunal set out in detail the flaws with the appellant’s evidence. It concluded that “the penalty was appropriate (or, indeed, lenient) in the circumstances, and the appellant has no legitimate complaint concerning its size”.

This decision is notable not only for its detailed critique (in terms of PECR compliance) of the appellant’s business practices and evidence on appeal, but also more widely for its contribution to the developing jurisprudence on monetary penalties and the application of the conditions under section 55A DPA. Thus far, the cases have been Scottish Borders (DPA appeal allowed, in a decision largely confined to the facts), Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust (appeal dismissed at both First-Tier and Upper Tribunal levels) and Niebel (PECR appeal allowed and upheld on appeal).

The Amber case is most closely linked to Niebel, which concerned marketing text messages. The Amber decision includes commentary on and interpretation of the binding Upper Tribunal decision in Niebel on how the section 55A conditions for issuing a monetary penalty should be applied. For example:

PECR should be construed so as to give proper effective to the Directive which it implements – see the Tribunal’s discussion of the Marleasing principle.

The impact of the ‘contravention’ can be assessed cumulatively, i.e. as the aggregate effect of the contraventions asserted in the penalty notice. In Niebel, the asserted contravention was a specified number of text messages which had been complained about, but the Tribunal in Amber took the view that, in other cases, the ICO need not frame the relevant contravention solely by reference to complaints – it could extrapolate, where the evidence supported this, to form a wider conclusion on contraventions.

Section 55A requires an assessment of the “likely” consequences of the “kind” of contravention. “Likely” has traditionally been taken to mean “a significant and weighty chance”, but the Tribunal in Amber considered that, in this context, it might mean “more than fanciful”, ie, “a real, a substantial rather than merely speculative, possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored”.

The “kind” of contravention includes the method of contravention, the general content and tenor of the communication, and the number or scale of the contravention.

“Substantial” (as in “substantial damage or substantial distress”) probably means “more than trivial, ie, real or of substance”. Damage or distress can be substantial on a cumulative basis, i.e. even if the individual incidents do not themselves cause substantial damage or substantial distress.

“Damage” is different to “distress” but is not confined to financial loss – for example, personal injury or property interference could suffice.

“Distress” means something more than irritation.

The significant and weighty chance of causing substantial distress to one person is sufficient for the threshold test to be satisfied.

Where the number of contraventions is large, there is a higher inherent chance of affecting somebody who, because of their particular unusual circumstances, is likely to suffer substantial damage or substantial distress due to the PECR breach.

The Amber decision is, to date, the most developed analysis at First-Tier Tribunal level, of the monetary penalty conditions. The decision will no doubt be cited and discussed in future cases.

11KBW’s James Cornwall appeared for the ICO in both Amber and Niebel.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Loss of personal data: £20k award upheld on appeal

September 16th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

If you breach your legal duties as regards personal data in your control, what might you expect to pay by way of compensation to the affected individual? The received wisdom has tended to be something along these lines. First, has the individual suffered any financial loss? If not, they are not entitled to a penny under s. 13 DPA. Second, even if they get across that hurdle, how much should they get for distress? Generally, not very much – reported awards have tended to be very low (in the low thousands at most).

All of that is very comforting for data controllers who run into difficulties.

That picture is, however, increasingly questionable. “Damage” (the precondition for any award, under s. 13 DPA) could mean something other than “financial loss” – other sorts of damage (even a nominal sort of damage) can, it seems, serve as the trigger. Also, provided the evidence is sufficiently persuasive, it seems that awards – whether under the DPA or at common law (negligence) – could actually be substantial.

These trends are evident in the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland in CR19 v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2014] NICA 54.

The appellant, referred to as CR19, was a police officer with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Due to his exposure to some serious terrorist incidents, he developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); he also developed a habit of excessive alcohol consumption. He left the Constabulary in 2001. In 2002, there was a burglary at Castlereagh Police, apparently carried out on behalf of a terrorist organisation. Data and records on officers including CR19 were stolen.

The Constabulary admitted both negligence and a breach of the seventh data protection principle (failure to take appropriate technical and organisational measures). The issue at trial was the amount of compensation to which CR19 was entitled.

Note the losses for which CR19 sought compensation: he claimed that, as a result of the stress which that data loss incident caused him, his PTSD and alcohol problems worsened, he lost out on an employment opportunity and that his house had been devalued as a result of threats to the property and the package of security measures that had been implemented for protection.

The trial judge heard evidence from a number of parties, including medical experts on both sides. He found some aspects of CR19’s evidence unsatisfactory. Overall, however, he awarded CR19 £20,000 (plus interest) for the Constabulary’s negligence. He did not expressly deal with any award under s. 13 of the DPA.

CR19 appealed, saying the award was too low. His appeal was largely dismissed: the trial judge had been entitled to reach his conclusions on the evidence before him.

Further, the s. 13 DPA claim added nothing to the quantum. The Court of Appeal considered the cases of Halliday (a £750 award) and AB (£2,250) (both reported on Panopticon) and concluded as follows (para. 24):

“In this case we have earlier recorded that three eminent psychiatrists gave professional evidence as to the distress sustained by CR19 as a consequence of the break-in. While accepting that the breach and its consequences in this case are of a different order to the matters considered in Halliday or AB, we conclude that the damages for distress arising from the breach of the Data Protection Act must be considered to be subsumed into the judge’s award which, while rejected as too low by the appellant, was by no means an insignificant award. The assessment took account of the distress engendered by the breach of data protection. We cannot conceive of any additional evidence that might be relevant to any additional damages for distress in respect of breach of section 4. Accordingly, we affirm the award of compensation made by the learned trial judge. However, in view of Arden LJ’s reasoning in Halliday, we conclude that the appellant must in addition be entitled to nominal damages of £1.00 to reflect the fact that there was an admitted breach of section 4 of the Data Protection Act.”

Whilst it is not strictly correct to read the CR19 judgment as affirming a DPA award for £20,000 (that award was for negligence), the judgment is nonetheless interesting from a DPA perspective in a number of respects, including these:

(i) While it was conceded in Halliday that nominal damage suffices as “damage” for s. 13(1) purposes, that conclusion looks like it is being applied more widely.

(ii) One problem in Halliday (and to an extent also in AB) was the lack of cogent evidence supporting the alleged damage. The CR19 case illustrates how evidence, including expert medical evidence, can be deployed to effect in data breach cases (whether based on negligence or on the DPA).

(iii) Unlawful acts with respect to individuals’ personal information can, it seems, lead one way or another to a substantial award. The DPA may aim to offer relatively modest awards (so said the Court of Appeal in Halliday), but serious misuse or loss of personal data can nonetheless be very damaging, and the law will recognise and compensate for this where appropriate.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Facebook, FOI and children

August 6th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

The Upper Tribunal has got its teeth into personal data disputes on a number of occasions in recent months – Edem was followed by Farrand, and now Surrey Heath Borough Council v IC and Morley [2014] UKUT 0330 (AAC): Morley UT decision. Panopticon reported on the first-instance Morley decision in 2012. In brief: Mr Morley asked for information about members of the local authority’s Youth Council who had provided input into a planning application. The local authority withheld the names of the Youth Councillors (who were minors) under s. 40(2) of FOAI (personal data). In a majority decision, the First-Tier Tribunal ordered that some of those names be disclosed, principally on the grounds that it seemed that they appeared on the Youth Council’s (closed) Facebook page.

The local authority and the ICO challenged that decision. The Upper Tribunal (Judge Jacobs) has agreed with them. He found the dissenting opinion of the First-Tier Tribunal member to have been the more sophisticated (as opposed to the overly generalised analysis of the majority) and ultimately correct. The Youth Councillors’ names were correctly withheld.

In his analysis of the First Data Protection Principle, Judge Jacobs was not much bothered by whether fairness or condition 6(1) (the relevant Schedule 2 condition) should be considered first: “the latter is but a specific instance of the former”.

Judge Jacobs found that there was no sufficient interest in the disclosure of the names of the Youth Councillors. He also rejected the argument that, by putting their names on the relevant Facebook page, the data subjects had implicitly consented to public disclosure of their identities in response to such a FOIA request.

Judge Jacobs stopped short, however, of finding that the personal data of minors should never be disclosed under FOIA, i.e. that the (privacy) interests of children would always take precedence over transparency. Maturity and autonomy matter more than mere age in this context, and sometimes (as here) minors are afforded substantial scope to make their own decisions.

Morley is an important case on the intersection between children’s personal data and transparency, particularly in the social media context, but – as Judge Jacobs himself observed – “it is by no means the last word on the subject”.

There were 11KBW appearances by Joseph Barrett (for the local authority) and Heather Emmerson (for the ICO).

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

In the wake of Google Spain: freedom of expression down (but not out)

July 15th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

The CJEU’s judgment in Google Spain was wrong and has created an awful mess.

That was the near-unanimous verdict of a panel of experts – including 11KBW’s Anya Proops – at a debate hosted by ITN and the Media Society on Monday 14 July and entitled ‘Rewriting History: Is the new era in Data Protection compatible with journalism?’.

The most sanguine participant was the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham. He cautioned against a ‘Chicken Licken’ (the sky is falling in) alarmism – we should wait and see how the right to be forgotten (RTBF) pans out in practice. He was at pains to reassure the media that its privileged status in data protection law was not in fact under threat: the s. 32 DPA exemption, for example, was here to stay. There remains space, Google Spain notwithstanding, to refuse RTBF inappropriate requests, he suggested – at least as concerns journalism which is in the public interest (a characteristic which is difficult in principle and in practice).

‘I am Chicken Licken!’, was the much less sanguine stance of John Battle, ITN’s Head of Compliance. Google Spain is a serious intrusion into media freedom, he argued. This was echoed by The Telegraph’s Holly Watt, who likened the RTBF regime to book-burning.

Peter Barron, Google’s Director of Communications and Public Affairs for Europe, Africa and the Middle East, argued that in implementing its fledgling RTBF procedure, Google was simply doing as told: it had not welcomed the Google Spain judgment, but that judgment is now the law, and implementing it was costly and burdensome. On the latter point, Chris Graham seemed less than entirely sympathetic, pointing out that Google’s business model is based heavily on processing other people’s personal data.

John Whittingdale MP, Chairman of the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee, was markedly Eurosceptic in tone. Recent data protection judgments from the CJEU have overturned what we in the UK had understood the law to be – he was referring not only to Google Spain, but also to Digital Rights Ireland (on which see my DRIP post from earlier today). The MOJ or Parliament need to intervene and restore sanity, he argued.

Bringing more legal rigour to bear was Anya Proops, who honed in on the major flaws in the Google Spain judgment. Without there having been any democratic debate (and without jurisprudential analysis), the CJEU has set a general rule whereby privacy trumps freedom of expression. This is hugely problematic in principle. It is also impracticable: the RTBF mechanism doesn’t actually work in practice, for example because it leaves Google.com (as opposed to Google.co.uk or another EU domain) untouched – a point also made by Professor Luciano Floridi, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the University of Oxford.

There were some probing questions from the audience too. Mark Stephens, for example, asked Chris Graham how he defined ‘journalism’ (answer: ‘if it walks and quacks like a journalist’…) and how he proposed to fund the extra workload which RTBF complaints would bring for the ICO (answer: perhaps a ‘polluter pays’ approach?).

Joshua Rozenberg asked Peter Barron if there was any reason why people should not switch their default browsers to the RTBF-free Google.com (answer: no) and whether Google would consider giving aggrieved journalists rights of appeal within a Google review mechanism (the Google RTBF mechanism is still developing).

ITN is making the video available on its website this week. Those seeking further detail can also search Twitter for the hashtag #rewritinghistory or see Adam Fellows’ blog post.

The general tenor from the panel was clear: Google Spain has dealt a serious and unjustifiable blow to the freedom of expression.

Lastly, one of my favourite comments came from ITN’s John Battle, referring to the rise of data protection as a serious legal force: ‘if we’d held a data protection debate a year ago, we’d have had one man and his dog turn up. Now it pulls in big crowds’. I do not have a dog, but I have been harping on for some time about data protection’s emergence from the shadows to bang its fist on the tables of governments, security bodies, big internet companies and society at large. It surely will not be long, however, before the right to freedom of expression mounts a legal comeback, in search of a more principled and workable balance between indispensible components of a just society.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Surveillance powers to be kept alive via DRIP

July 15th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

The legal framework underpinning state surveillance of individuals’ private communications is in turmoil, and it is not all Edward Snowden’s fault. As I write this post, two hugely important developments are afoot.

Prism/Tempora

The first is the challenge by Privacy International and others to the Prism/Tempora surveillance programmes implemented by GCHQ and the security agencies. Today is day 2 of the 5-day hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. To a large extent, this turmoil was unleashed by Snowden.

DRIP – the background

The second strand of the turmoil is thanks to Digital Rights Ireland and others, whose challenge to the EU’s Data Retention Directive 2006/24 was upheld by the CJEU in April of this year. That Directive provided for traffic and location data (rather than content-related information) about individuals’ online activity to be retained by communications providers for a period of 6-24 months and made available to policing and security bodies. In the UK, that Directive was implemented via the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, which mandated retention of communications data for 12 months.

In Digital Rights Ireland, the CJEU held the Directive to be invalid on the grounds of incompatibility with the privacy rights enshrined under the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Strictly speaking, the CJEU’s judgment (on a preliminary ruling) then needed to be applied by the referring courts, but in reality the foundation of the UK’s law fell away with the Digital Rights Ireland judgment. The government has, however, decided that it needs to maintain the status quo in terms of the legal powers and obligations which were rooted in the invalid Directive.

On 10 July 2014, the Home Secretary made a statement announcing that this gap in legal powers was to be plugged on a limited-term basis. A Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill would be put before Parliament, together with a draft set of regulations to be made under the envisaged Act. If passed, these would remain in place until the end of 2016, by which time longer-term solutions could be considered. Ms May said this would:

“…ensure, for now at least, that the police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this legislation, we face the very prospect of losing access to this data overnight, with the consequence that police investigations will suddenly go dark and criminals will escape justice. We cannot allow this to happen.”

Today, amid the ministerial reshuffle and shortly before the summer recess, the Commons is debating DRIP on an emergency basis.

Understandably, there has been much consternation about the extremely limited time allotted for MPs to debate a Bill of such enormous significance for privacy rights (I entitled my post on the Digital Rights Ireland case “Interfering with the fundamental rights of practically the entire European population”, which is a near-verbatim quote from the judgment).

DRIP – the data retention elements

The Bill is short. A very useful summary can be found in the Standard Note from the House of Commons Library (authored by Philippa Ward).

Clause 1 provides power for the Secretary of State to issue a data retention notice on a telecommunications services provider, requiring them to retain certain data types (limited to those set out in the Schedule to the 2009 Regulations) for up to 12 months. There is a safeguard that the Secretary of State must consider whether it is “necessary and proportionate” to give the notice for one or more of the purposes set out in s22(2) of RIPA.

Clause 2 then provides the relevant definitions.

The Draft Regulations explain the process in more detail. Note in particular regulation 5 (the matters the Secretary of State must consider before giving a notice) and regulation 9 (which provides for oversight by the Information Commissioner of the requirements relating to integrity, security and destruction of retained data).

DRIP – the RIPA elements

DRIP is also being used to clarify (says the government) or extend (say some critics) RIPA 2000. In this respect, as commentators such as David Allen Green have pointed out, it is not clear why the emergency legislation route is necessary.

Again, to borrow the nutshells from the House of Commons Library’s Standard Note:

Clause 3 amends s5 of RIPA regarding the Secretary of State’s power to issue interception warrants on the grounds of economic well-being.

Clause 4 aims to clarify the extra-territorial reach of RIPA in in relation to both interception and communications data by adding specific provisions. This confirms that requests for interception and communications data to overseas companies that are providing communications services within the UK are subject to the legislation.

Clause 5 clarifies the definition of “telecommunications service” in RIPA to ensure that internet-based services, such as webmail, are included in the definition.

Criticism

The Labour front bench is supporting the Coalition. A number of MPs, including David Davis and Tom Watson, have been vociferous in their opposition (see for example the proposed amendments tabled by Watson and others here). So too have numerous academics and commentators. I won’t try to link to all of them here (as there are too many). Nor can I link to a thorough argument in defence of DRIP (as I have not been able to find one). For present purposes, an excellent forensic analysis comes from Graham Smith at Cyberleagle.

I don’t seek to duplicate that analysis. It is, however, worth remembering this: the crux of the CJEU’s judgment was that the Directive authorised such vast privacy intrusions that stringent safeguards were required to render it proportionate. In broad terms, that proportionately problem can be fixed in two ways: reduce the extent of the privacy intrusions and/or introduce much better safeguards. DRIP does not seek to do the former. The issue is whether it offers sufficient safeguards for achieving an acceptable balance between security and privacy.

MPs will consider that today and Peers later this week. Who knows? – courts may even be asked for their views in due course.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Fairness under the DPA: public interests can outweigh those of the data subject

June 18th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

Suppose a departing employee was the subject of serious allegations which you never had the chance properly to investigate or determine. Should you mention these (unproven) allegations to a future employer? Difficult questions arise, in both ethical and legal terms. One aspect of the legal difficulty arises under data protection law: would it be fair to share that personal information with the prospective employer?

The difficulty is enhanced because fairness – so pivotal to data protection analysis – has had little or no legal treatment.

This week’s judgment of Mr Justice Cranston in AB v A Chief Constable [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) is in that sense a rare thing – a judicial analysis of fairness.

AB was a senior police officer – specifically, a chief superintendent. He was given a final written warning in 2009 following a disciplinary investigation. Later, he was subject to further investigation for allegedly seeking to influence the police force’s appointment process in favour of an acquaintance of AB; this raised a number of serious questions, including about potential dishonesty, lack of integrity, and so on.

AB was on sick leave (including for reasons related to psychological health) for much of the period when that second investigation was unfolding. He was unhappy with how the Force was treating him. He got an alternative job offer from a regulator. He then resigned from the Force before the hearing concerning his alleged disciplinary offences. His resignation was accepted. The Force provided him with a standard reference, but the Chief Constable then took the view that – given the particular, unusual circumstances – he should provide the prospective employer with a second reference, explaining the allegations about AB.

The second reference was to say inter alia that:

“[AB’s] resignation letter pre-dated by some 13 days a gross misconduct hearing at which he was due to appear to face allegations of (i) lack of honesty and integrity (ii) discreditable conduct and (iii) abuse of authority in relation to a recruitment issue. It is right to record that he strenuously denied those allegations. In the light of his resignation the misconduct hearing has been stayed as it is not in the public interest to incur the cost of a hearing when the officer concerned has already resigned, albeit his final date of service post-dating the hearing.”

AB objected to the giving of the second reference and issued a section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act 1998. The lawfulness of the Force’s proposed second reference arose for consideration by Cranston J.

The first issue was this: was the Chief Constable legally obliged to provide a second reference explaining those concerns?

Cranston J held that, in terms of the common/private law duty of care (on the Hedley Byrne line of authority), the answer was no. As a matter of public law, however – and specifically by reference to the Police Conduct Regulations – the answer was yes: “the Chief Constable was obliged by his duty to act with honesty and integrity not to give a standard reference for the recipient because that was misleading. Something more was demanded. In this case the Chief Constable was prima facie under a duty to supply the Regulatory Body at the least with the information about disciplinary matters in the second reference.”

Note the qualifier ‘prima facie’: the upshot was that the duty was displaced if the provision of the second reference would breach the DPA. This raised a number of issues for the Court.

First, no information about AB’s health could be imparted: this was sensitive personal data, and the Chief Constable did not assert that a Schedule 3 DPA condition was met (as required under the First Data Protection Principle).

What about the information as to the disciplinary allegations AB faced? This was not sensitive personal data. Therefore, under the First Data Protection Principle, it could be disclosed if to do so would be (a) fair, (b) lawful, and (c) in accordance with a Schedule 2 condition.

The last two were unproblematic: given the prima facie public law duty to make the second reference here, it would lawful to do so and condition 3 from Schedule 2 would be met.

This left ‘fairness’, which Cranston J discussed in the following terms:

“There is no definition of fairness in the 1998 Act. The Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, to which the 1998 Act gives effect, contains a reference to protecting privacy rights, as recognised in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in general principles of EU law: recital 10. However, I cannot accept Mr Lock QC’s submission that the duty of fairness under the Directive and the 1998 Act is a duty to be fair primarily to the data subject. The rights to private and family life in Article 8 are subject to the countervailing public interests set out in Article 8(2). So it is here: assessing fairness involves a balancing of the interests of the data subject in non-disclosure against the public interest in disclosure.”

In conducting this balance between the interests of AB and those of others (including the public interests), Cranston J ultimately – on the particular facts – concluded that it would have been unfair to provide the second reference. There were strong fairness arguments in favour of disclosure – a see paragraph 78 (my emphasis):

“… The focus must be on fairness in the immediate decision to disclose the data [as opposed to a wider-ranging inquiry into the data subject’s conduct in the build-up to disclosure]. In this case the factors making it fair to disclose the information were the public interest in full and frank references, especially the duty of the police service properly to inform other police forces and other regulatory bodies of the person they are seeking to employ. To disclose the information in the second reference would patently have been fair to the Regulatory Body, so it could make a rounded assessment of the claimant, especially given his non-disclosure during the application process.”

However, the balance tipped in AB’s favour. This was partly because the Force’s policy – as well as the undertaken specifically given to AB – was to provide only a standard reference. But (see paragraph 79):

“… what in my view is determinative, and tips the balance of fairness in this case in favour of the claimant, is that he changed his position by resigning from the Force and requesting it to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings, before knowing that the Chief Constable intended to send the second reference. That second reference threatened the job which he had accepted with the Regulatory Body. It is unrealistic to think that the claimant could have taken steps to reverse his resignation in the few weeks before it would take effect. Deputy Chief Constable CD for one had indicated that he would not allow it. The reality was that the claimant was in an invidious position, where in reliance on what the Force through GH had said and done, he was deprived of the opportunity to reinstate the disciplinary proceedings and to fight the allegations against him. This substantive unfairness for the claimant was coupled with the procedural unfairness in the decision to send the second reference without giving him the opportunity to make representations against that course of action. Asking him to comment on its terms after the final decision to send the second reference was too little, too late.”

Therefore, because of unfairness in breach of the DPA and because of AB’s legitimate expectations, the second reference was not lawful.

While Cranston J rightly emphasised the highly fact-specific nature of his overall conclusion, aspects of his discussion of fairness will potentially be of wider application.

So too will his reminder (by way of quoting ICO guidance) that, when it comes to section 10 notices, “Although this [section 10] may give the impression that an individual can simply demand than an organisation stops processing personal data about them, or stops processing it in a particular way, the right is often overstated. In practice, it is much more limited”. Again, in other words, a balancing of interests and an assessment of the justification for the processing is required.

With the ‘right to be forgotten’ very much in vogue, that is a useful point to keep in mind.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Section 13 DPA in the High Court: nominal damage plus four-figure distress award

June 13th, 2014 by Robin Hopkins

Given the paucity of case law, it is notoriously difficult to estimate likely awards of compensation under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for breaches of that Act. It is also very difficult to assess any trends in compensation awards over time.

AB v MoJ [2014] EWHC 1847 (QB) is the Courts’ (Mr Justice Jeremy Baker) latest consideration of compensation under the DPA. The factual background involves protracted correspondence involving numerous subject access requests. Ultimately, it was held that the Defendant failed to provide certain documents to which the Claimant was entitled under section 7 of the DPA within the time frames set out under that section.

Personal data?

There was a dispute as to whether one particular document contained the Claimant’s ‘personal data’. Baker J noted the arguments from Common Services Agency, and he is not the first to observe (at his paragraph 50) that it is sometimes not a ‘straightforward issue’ to determine whether or not information comes within the statutory definition of personal data. Ultimately, he considered that the disputed document did not come within that definition: it “is in wholly neutral terms, and is indeed merely a conduit for the provision of information contained in the letters which it enclosed which certainly did contain the claimant’s personal data”.

Nonetheless, the DPA had been breached in virtue of the delays in the provision of other information to which the Claimant was entitled under section 7. What compensation should he be awarded?

Damage under section 13(1) DPA

Baker J was satisfied, having considered In Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 333, [2013] 2 Info LR 85 (where the same point was conceded), that nominal damage sufficed as ‘damage’ for section 13(1) purposes: “In this regard the word “damage” in this sub-section is not qualified in any way, such that to my mind provided that there has, as in this case, been some relevant loss, then an individual who has also suffered relevant distress is entitled to an award of compensation in respect of it”.

Here the Court was satisfied that nominal damages should be awarded. The Claimant had spent a lot of time pursuing his requests, albeit that much of that time also involved pursuing requests on clients’ behalves, and albeit that no actual loss had been quantified:

“Essentially the claimant is a professional man who, it is apparent from his witness statement, has expended a considerable amount of time and expense in the pursuit of the disclosure of his and others’ data from various Government Departments and other public bodies, including the disclosed and withheld material from the defendant. Having said that, the claimant has not sought to quantify his time and expense, nor has he allocated it between the various requests on his own and others’ behalves. In these circumstances, although I am satisfied that he has suffered damage in accordance with s.13(1) of the DPA 1998, I consider that this is a case in which an award of nominal damages is appropriate under this head, which will be in the conventional sum of £1.00.”

Distress under section 13(2) DPA

That finding opened the door to an award for distress. The Court found that distress had been suffered, although it was difficult to disentangle his distress attributable to the breaches of the DPA from his distress as to the other surrounding circumstances: “doing the best I am able to on the evidence before me I consider that any award of compensation for distress caused as a result of the relevant delays in this case, should be in the sum of £2,250.00”.

Until this week, Halliday was the Courts’ last reported (on Panopticon at any rate) award of compensation under section 13 DPA. That was 14 months ago. In AB, the Court awarded precisely triple that sum for distress.

For a further (and quicker-off-the-mark) discussion of AB, see this post on Jon Baines’ blog, Information Rights and Wrongs.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin