Author: Robin Hopkins

Information rights: proposed legislative changes and more

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Earlier this week, James Goudie QC blogged on the Intellectual Property Bill’s amendment to FOIA, introducing a new qualified exemption (section 22A) for continuing programmes of research intended for future publication. On the issue of research – which featured prominently in submissions from the university sector during FOIA’s post-legislative scrutiny health-check – this would bring FOIA into line with its Scottish counterpart. For an informative discussion of this topic, see this post from Kit Good.

Interestingly, that post refers to an ICO decision notice (FS50163282 of 29 March 2010) about “tree ring” data, a method used to analyse wood from archaeological sites to determine past climates. The ICO found that Queen’s University Belfast was not entitled to rely on (among other exceptions) regulations 12(4)(d) of the EIRs (material which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data). As it happens, the Tribunal has today issued a decision concerned with tree ring data in a university research context: McIntyre v IC and UEA, EA/2012/0156. The Tribunal noted the ICO’s note of caution concerning ever-evolving research data: “this argument should not be used to withhold tree-ring chronologies endlessly, by arguing that they are always a ‘work in progress’”. However, on the facts of the case the Tribunal upheld UEA’s reliance on regulation 12(4)(d), as supported by the ICO.

This has not been FOIA’s only outing in Parliament this week. An early day motion was tabled on Tuesday of this week expressing concern at the Government’s proposal to make cost restrictions more public authority-friendly. The motion is worded as follows:

“That this House notes that the Government is proposing to make it easier for public authorities to refuse Freedom of Information requests on cost grounds in order to prevent disproportionate use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by some requesters; expresses concern that requests by those making moderate use of the legislation will also be more easily refused under the proposals; is particularly concerned at the proposal that the time which authorities spend considering whether to release information should be taken into account when calculating whether the cost limit has been reached; further notes that this proposal was expressly rejected by the Justice Committee in its post-legislative review of the Act; believes that this proposal will penalise requests raising new or complex issues which will inevitably require substantial time to consider; observes that the Government’s objective will in any case be achieved following recent decisions of an Upper Tribunal that requests which involve a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of the Act can be refused as vexatious; and calls on the Government not to proceed with its proposals.”

The motion’s primary sponsor is Richard Shepherd. At present, there are 12 signatories. Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for FOI is urging more MPs to take up the cause.

Turning from FOIA to information rights concerns of a data protection variety, the Care Bill was introduced in the House of Lords last week. Notably, it contains an express provision making the provision of “false or misleading information” an offence (subject of course to the statutory definitions being met). Clause 81 provides as follows:

(1) A care provider of a specified description commits an offence if—

(a) it supplies, publishes or otherwise makes available information of a specified description,

(b) the supply, publication or making available by other means of information of that description is required under an enactment or other legal obligation, and

(c) the information is false or misleading in a material respect.

The aims of this clause are not confined to matters affecting personal privacy – indeed, the explanatory document suggests it is confined to ‘management information’. There may, however, be some crossover with information on individual cases, particularly in ‘low cell count’ cases where individuals could be identified from higher-level data. The Data Protection 1998 does not use the language of “misleading” – focusing instead on inaccuracy and fairness. There are often DPA-related grievances, however, in which “misleading” is an excellent summary of the data subject’s concern.

Robin Hopkins

Thirteen deadly sins: new ICO guidance on vexatious requests

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

On Wednesday, the ICO launched its new guidance on section 14 (vexatious requests) on Wednesday. This follows the Upper Tribunal’s recent decisions on this exemption (Panopticon passim), as well as decisions such as Salford City Council v IC and TieKey Accounts (EA/2012/0047) concerning reliance on section 14 to avoid incurring unreasonable cost burdens.

The ICO’s long-standing 5 indicators are supplanted by a new list of 13 indicators – though the emphasis remains on their not being intended as pseudo-statutory tests (and thus they are not really ‘deadly sins’). The thirteen indicators are (in no particular order):

abusive or aggressive language; burden on the authority; personal grudges; unreasonable persistence; unfounded accusations; intransigence; frequent or overlapping requests; deliberate intention to cause annoyance; scattergun approach; disproportionate effort; no obvious intent to obtain information; futile requests; frivolous requests.

The guidance addresses such topics as round robins, fishing expeditions and requesters acting in concert/as part of a campaign, all of which arise frequently for consideration by public authorities. There is also a section on “recommended actions before making a final decision” (paragraphs 93-97) which public authorities would be wise to consider with an eye on complaints to the ICO from dissatisfied recipients of section 14 notices.

For discussions of the new guidance, see these blog posts from the ICO’s Deputy Commissioner, Graham Smith, and also from FOI Man.

Robin Hopkins

Google: autocomplete and the frontiers of privacy

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Unsurprisingly, the frontiers of privacy and data protection law are often explored and extended by reference to what Google does. Panopticon has, for example, covered disputes over Google Street View (on which a US lawsuit was settled in recent months), Google’s status as a ‘publisher’ of blogs containing allegedly defamatory material (see Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68) and its responsibility for search results directing users to allegedly inaccurate or out-of-date personal data (see Google Spain v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (application C-131/12), in which judgment is due in the coming months).

A recent decision of a German appellate court appears to have extended the frontiers further. The case (BGH, VI ZR 269/12 of 14th May 2013) concerned Google’s ‘autocomplete’ function. When the complainants’ names were typed into Google’s search bar, the autocomplete function added the ensuing words “Scientology” and “fraud”. This was not because there was lots of content linking that individual with those terms. Rather, it was because these were the terms other Google users had most frequently searched for in conjunction with that person’s name. This was due to rumours the truth or accuracy of which the complainants denied. They complained that the continuing association of their names with these terms infringed their rights to personality and reputation as protected by German law (Articles 823(1) and 1004 of the German Civil Code).

In the Google Spain case, Google has said that the responsibility lies with the generators of the content, not with the search engine which offers users that content. In the recent German case, Google has argued in a similar vein that the autocomplete suggestions are down to what other users have searched for, not what Google says or does.

In allowing the complainants’ appeals, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe has disagreed with Google. The result is that once Google has been alerted to the fact that an autocomplete suggestion links someone to libellous words, it must remove that suggestion. The case is well covered by Jeremy Phillips at IPKat and by Karin Matussek of Bloomberg in Berlin.

The case is important in terms of the frontiers of legal protection for personal integrity and how we allocate responsibility for harm. Google says that, in these contexts, it is a facilitator not a generator. It says it should not liable for what people write (see Tamiz and Google Spain), not for what they search for (the recent German case). Not for the first time, courts in Europe have allocated responsibility differently.

Notably, this case was not brought under data protection law. In principle, it seems that such complaints could be expressed in data protection terms. Perhaps, if the EU’s final Data Protection Regulation retains the severe penalty provisions proposed in the draft version, data protection will move centre-stage in these sorts of cases.

Robin Hopkins

Data protection: trends, possibilities and FOI disclosures

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

At 11KBW’s information law seminar in May, one of the discussion topics was ‘the future of data protection’. Here are some further thoughts on some interesting trends and developments.

Progress at the EU level

A major issue on this front is of course progress on the draft EU Data Protection Regulation – on which see this blog post from the ICO’s David Smith for an overview of the issues currently attracting the most debate. While that negotiation process runs its course, the Article 29 Working Party continues to provide influential guidance for users and regulators on some of the thorniest data protection issues. Its most recent opinion addresses purpose limitation, i.e. the circumstances under which data obtained for one purpose can be put to another. A summary of its views is available here.

Subject access requests

Turning to domestic DPA litigation in the UK, practitioners should watch out for a number of other developments (actual or potential) over the coming months. On the subject access request front, for example, data controllers have tended to take comfort from two themes in recent judgments (such as Elliott and Abadir, both reported on Panopticon). In short, the courts in those cases have agreed that (i) data controllers need only carry out reasonable and proportionate searches, and (ii) that section 7(9) claims being pursued for the collateral purpose of aiding other substantive litigation will be an abuse of process.

Data controllers should, however, note that neither of those points is free from doubt: there are plenty who doubt the legal soundness of the proportionality point, and the abuse of process point has arisen for section 7(9) claims to the court – it should not, in other words, be relied upon too readily to refuse requests themselves.

Damages

Damages under section 13 of the DPA is another area of potentially important change. The Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance case (briefly reported by Panopticon) has been given further discussion in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly here. Based on that information, perhaps the most interesting point is this: defendants have rightly taken comfort from the requirement under section 13 that compensation for distress can be awarded only where damage has also been suffered. In Halliday, however, nominal damages (of £1) were awarded, thereby apparently fulfilling the ‘damage’ requirement and opening the door for a ‘distress’ award (though note that Panopticon has not yet seen a full judgment from the Court of Appeal in this case, so do not take this as a definitive account). If that approach becomes standard practice, claimants may be in much stronger positions for seeking damages.

A further potential development on the damages front arises out of monetary penalty notices: data controllers who are subject to hefty penalties by the ICO may in some cases also find themselves facing section 13 claims from the affected data subjects themselves, presenting a worrying prospect of paying out twice for the same mistake.

Disclosure of personal data in the FOIA context

In general terms, requesters struggle to obtain the personal data of others through FOIA requests. A couple of very recent decisions have, however, gone the other way.

In White v IC and Carmarthenshire County Council (EA/2012/0238), the First-Tier Tribunal allowed the requester’s appeal and ordered disclosure of a list of licensed dog-breeders in the council’s area. In particular, it concluded that (paragraphs 21-23):

“…the Tribunal believes – on the facts of this case – that an important factor for any assessment in relation to the “fairness” of the disclosure of the personal data is best discovered from the context in which the personal data was provided to the Council in the first place.

22. The context, here, is to secure a commercial licence required by law to breed dogs. That license is necessary for the local authority to know who the licensed dog breeders in that area are, and so that the law can be enforced and welfare checks can be conducted as and when necessary in relation to the welfare of the dogs being bred commercially.

23. Licensing – in the ordinary course of things – is a public regulatory process. Indeed it was a public process in Carmarthenshire, in relation to the information that is at the core of this appeal, until the Council changed its policy in 2008.”

The Tribunal was unimpressed by the suggestive language of a survey of dog breeders which the council had carried out to support its case for non-disclosure. It also noted that a neighbouring council had disclosed such information.

The First-Tier Tribunal issued its decision in Dicker v IC (EA/2012/0250) today. It allowed the requester’s appeal and ordered disclosure of the salary of the chief executive of the NHS Surrey PCT over specified time periods, including total remuneration, expenses allowance, pension contributions and benefit details. As to legitimate interests in disclosure, the Tribunal said that (paragraph 13):

“In this case the arrangements (including secondment and recharge from another public authority at one stage) mean that the arrangements are not as transparent as might be wished and it is not entirely clear from the information published (as opposed to the assurances given) that the national pay guidance has been complied with. Mr Dicker asserted that the CEO was paid in excess of the national framework. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was a legitimate public interest in demonstrating that the national framework had been complied with and that the published information did not properly establish this”.

On the questions of distress and privacy infringements, the Tribunal took this view (paragraph 14):

“The CEO is a prominent public servant discharging heavy responsibilities who must expect to be scrutinised. Individuals in such circumstances are rational, efficient, hard-working and robust. They are fully entitled to a high degree of respect for their private lives. However the protection of personal information about their families and their health is a very different matter from having in the public domain information about income… The Tribunal simply cannot accept that anyone in such a role would feel the slightest distress, or consider that there has been any intrusion or that they would be prejudiced in any way by such information. From the perspective of the individual such information is essentially trivial; indeed, in other European societies, such information would be routinely available.”

If this approach were to become standard, the implications for public authorities would be significant.

Further, there are two very important personal data FOIA cases to look out for in the coming months. Following its decision in the Edem case late in 2012, the Upper Tribunal’s next consideration of personal data in the FOIA context is the appeal in the Morley v IC & Surrey Heath Borough Council (EA/2011/0173) case, in which the Tribunal – in a majority decision in which Facebook disclosures played a significant part – ordered the disclosure of names of certain youth councillors.

More importantly, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from the Scottish Court of Session in July about a FOISA request for the number of individuals employed by the Council on specific points in the pay structure. The council relied on the personal data exemption (contending that individuals could be identified from the requested information), but the Scottish Information Commissioner ordered disclosure and succeeded before Scotland’s highest court. The Supreme Court will consider issues including the approach to ‘legitimate interests’ under condition 6(1) of schedule 2 to the DPA (the condition most often relied upon in support of disclosing personal data to the public). The case is likely to have far-reaching implications. For more detail, see Alistair Sloan’s blog.

Panopticon will, as ever, keep its eye on these and other related developments.

Robin Hopkins

Court of Appeal rules on damages for frustration at DPA breach

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

On a day in which the remedying of privacy breaches of the kind considered by Leveson LJ dominated parliamentary debate, the Court of Appeal (Arden LJ, Lloyd LJ and Ryder J) delivered an interesting judgment on remedies for privacy breaches of the data protection variety.

Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance concerned Mr H’s appeal against a damages award to him under s. 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He had obtained default judgment against CCF for its breach of the DPA: it had accidentally and temporarily passed to a credit reference agency incorrect information about his allegedly having an unpaid debt of £1500 (Mr H and CCF had in fact resolved their dispute by that point). The judge at first instance awarded Mr H nominal damages of no fixed amount, but was not satisfied that there was evidence of reputational harm or prejudice to Mr H’s credit position. Mr H therefore received nothing in the way of substantial damages.

His appeal has been allowed. Nominal damages were set at £1 – as Panopticon understands it, this appears to have sufficed as ‘damage’ for s. 13(1) purposes, thereby entitling Mr H to compensation for distress under s. 13(2). He was awarded £750 in recognition of his distress and frustration at CCF’s wrongful processing, but there was no cogent evidence of him having suffered injury to feelings at the time, and CCF’s breach was a technical error rather than an intentional mis-statement. Hence the somewhat insubstantial sum by way of substantial damages.

Mr H sought to rely on Article 24 of Directive 95/46/EC which provides that member states must provide for sanctions where data protection rights have been infringed, but the Court of Appeal held that he could not seek direct enforcement of that provision in private proceedings, and that it was not the function of the civil courts to impose sanctions on data controllers – rather, their function under s. 13 of the DPA was to compensate data subjects.

It is understood that this judgment was delivered ex tempore, with a written judgment to follow, along with more Panopticon analysis.

Robin Hopkins

Privacy and data protection developments in 2013: Google, Facebook, Leveson and more

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Data protection law was designed to be a fundamental and concrete dimension of the individual’s right to privacy, the primary safeguard against misuse of personal information. Given those ambitions, it is surprisingly rarely litigated in the UK. It also attracts criticism as imposing burdensome bureaucracy but delivering little in the way of tangible protection in a digital age. Arguably then, data protection law has tended to punch below its weight. There are a number of reasons for this.

One is that Directive 95/46/EC, the bedrock of data protection laws in the European Union, is the product of a largely pre-digital world; its drafters can scarcely have imagined the ubiquity of Google, Twitter, Facebook and the like.

Another is that in the UK, the evolution of Article 8 ECHR and common law privacy and breach of confidence actions has tended to deprive the Data Protection Act 1998 of the oxygen of litigation – before the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22, for example, it was agreed that the DPA cause of action “added nothing” to the supermodel’s breach of confidence claim (para. 130).

A further factor is that the DPA 1998 has historically lacked teeth: a court’s discretion to enforce subject access rights under s. 7(9) is “general and untrammelled” (Durant v FSA [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 at para. 74); damages under s. 13 can only be awarded if financial loss has been incurred, and the Information Commissioner has, until recently, lacked robust enforcement powers.

This landscape is, however, undergoing very significant changes which (one hopes) will improve data protection’s fitness for purpose and amplify its contribution to privacy law. Here is an overview of some of the more notable developments so far in 2013.

The draft Data Protection Regulation

The most fundamental feature of this landscape is of course EU law. The draft DP Regulation, paired with a draft Directive tailored to the crime and security contexts, was leaked in December 2011 and published in January 2012 (see Panopticon’s analysis here). The draft Regulation, unlike its predecessor would be directly effective and therefore not dependent on implementation through member states’ domestic legislation. Its overarching aim is harmonisation of data protection standards across the EU: it includes a mechanism for achieving consistency, and a ‘one-stop shop’ regulatory approach (i.e. multinationals are answerable only to their ‘home’ data protection authority). It also tweaks the law on international data transfers, proposes that most organisations have designated data protection officers, offers individuals a ‘right to be forgotten’ and proposes eye-watering monetary penalties for data protection breaches.

Negotiations on that draft Regulation are in full swing: the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union’s DAPIX (Data Protection and Information Exchange) subgroup working on their recommendations separately before coming together to approve the final text (for more detail on the process, see the ICO’s outline here).

What changes, if any, should be made to the draft before it is finalised? That rather depends on who you ask.

In January 2013, the UK government set out its views on the draft Regulation. It did so in the form of its response to the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee following the latter’s examination of the draft Regulation. This is effectively the government’s current negotiation stance at the EU table. It opposes direct effect (i.e. it wants a directive rather than a regulation), thinks the ‘right to be forgotten’ as drafted is misconceived, favours charging for subject access requests and opposes the mandatory data protection officer requirement. The government considers that promoters of the draft have substantially overestimated the savings which the draft would deliver to business. The government also “believes that the supervisory authorities should have more discretion in the imposition of fines and that the proposed removal of discretion, combined with the higher levels of fines, could create an overly risk-averse environment for data controllers”. For more on its stance, see here.

The ICO has also has significant concerns. It opposes the two-stream approach (a mainstream Regulation and a crime-focused Directive) and seeks clarity on psedonymised data and non-obvious identifiers such as logs of IP addresses. It thinks the EU needs to be realistic about a ‘right to be forgotten’ and about its power over non-EU data controllers. It considers the current proposal to be “too prescriptive in terms of its administrative detail” and unduly burdensome for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular.

Interestingly, while the ICO favours consistency in terms of sanctions, it cautions against total harmonisation on all fronts: “Different Member States have different legal traditions. What is allowed by law is not spelled out in the UK in the way that it is in some other countries’ legal systems. The proposed legislation needs to reflect this, particularly in relation to the concept of ‘legitimate interests’.” For more on the ICO’s current thinking, see here.

Those then are the most influential UK perspectives. At an EU level, the European Parliament’s report on the draft Regulation is more wholeheartedly supportive. The European Parliament’s Industry Committee is somewhat more business-friendly in its focus, emphasising the importance of EU-wide consistency and a ‘one-stop shop’. Its message is clear: business needs certainty on data protection requirements. It also urges further exemptions from data protection duties for small and medium-sized enterprises “which are the backbone of Europe’s economy”. The Industry Committee’s views are available here.

Negotiations continue, the aim being to finalise the text by mid-2013. The European Parliament is likely to press for the final text to resemble the draft very closely. On the other hand, Ireland holds the Presidency of the Commission and of DAPIX – until mid-2013. Its perspective is probably closer to the UK ICO’s in tenor. There are good prospects of at least some of their views to be reflected in the final draft.

A number of the themes of the draft Regulation and the current negotiations are already surfacing in litigation, as explained below.

The Leveson Report

Data protection legislation in the UK will be affected not only by EU developments but by domestic ones too.

In recent weeks, debate about Leveson LJ’s report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press has tended to focus on the Defamation Bill which is currently scraping its way through Parliament. In particular, the debate concerns the merits of an apparently-Leveson inspired amendment tabled by Lord Puttnam which, some argue, threatens to derail this legislative overhaul of libel law in the UK (for one angle on this issue, see David Allen Green’s piece in the New Statesman here).

The Leveson Report also included a number of recommendations for changes to the DPA 1998 (see Panopticon’s posts here and here). These included overhauling and expanding the reach of the ICO and allowing courts to award damages even where no financial loss has been suffered (arguably a befitting change to a regime concerned at heart with personal privacy).

The thorniest of Leveson LJ’s DPA recommendations, however, concerned the wide-ranging ‘journalism exemption’ provided by s. 32. The ICO has begun work on a code of practice on the scope and meaning of this exemption. It has conducted a ‘framework consultation’, i.e. one seeking views on the questions to be addressed by the code, rather than the answers at this stage (further consultation will happen once a code has been drafted).

There is potential for this code to exert great influence: s. 32(3) says that in considering whether “the belief of a data controller that publication would be in the public interest was or is a reasonable one, regard may be had to his compliance with” any relevant code of practice – if it has been designated by order of the Secretary of State for this purpose. There is as yet no indication of an appetite for such designation, but it is hoped that, the wiser the code, the stronger the impetus to designate it.

The ICO’s framework consultation closes on 15 March. Watch out for (and respond to) the full consultation in due course.

Google – confidentiality, informed consent and data-sharing

Google (the closest current thing to a real ‘panopticon’?) has been the subject of a flurry of important recent developments.

First, certain EU data protection bodies intend to take “repressive action” against some of Google’s personal data practices. These bodies include the French authority, CNIL (the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés) and the Article 29 Working Party (an advisory body made of data protection representatives from member states). In October 2012, following an investigation led by CNIL, the Working Party raised what it saw as deficiencies in Google’s confidentiality rules. It recommended, for example, that Google provide users with clearer information on issues such as how personal data is shared across Google’s services, and on Google’s retention periods for personal data. Google was asked to respond within four months. CNIL has reported in recent weeks that Google did not respond. The next step is for the Working Party “to set up a working group, led by the CNIL, in order to coordinate their repressive action which should take place before summer”. It is not clear what type of “repressive action” is envisaged.

Google and the ‘right to be forgotten’

Second, Google is currently involved in litigation against the Spanish data protection authority in the Court of Justice of the EU. The case arises out of complaints made to that authority by a number of Spanish citizens whose names, when Googled, generated results linking them to false, inaccurate or out-of-date information (contrary to the data protection principles) – for example an old story mentioning a surgeon’s being charged with criminal negligence, without mentioning that he had been acquitted. The Spanish authority ordered Google to remove the offending entries. Google challenged this order, arguing that it was for the authors or publishers of those websites to remedy such matters. The case was referred to the CJEU by the Spanish courts. The questions referred are available here.

The CJEU considered the case at the end of February, with judgment expected in mid-2013. The case is obviously of enormous relevance to Google’s business model (at least as regards the EU). Also, while much has been made about the ‘right to be forgotten’ codified in the draft EU Regulation (see above), this Google case is effectively about whether that right exists under the current law. For a Google perspective on these issues, see this blog post.

Another development closer to home touches on similar issues. The Court of Appeal gave judgment last month in Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68. Mr Tamiz complained to Google about comments on the ‘London Muslim’ blog (hosted by Google) which he contended were defamatory in nature. He asked Google to remove that blog. He also sought permission to serve proceedings on Google in California for defamation occurring between his request to Google and the taking down of the offending blog. Agreeing with Google, the Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction and permission to serve on Google in California.

Mr Tamiz’ case failed on the facts: given the small number of people who would have viewed this blog post in the relevant period, the extra-territorial proceedings ‘would not be worth the candle’.

The important points for present purposes, however, are these: the Court of Appeal held that there was an arguable case that Google was the ‘publisher’ of those statements for defamation purposes, and that it would not have an unassailable defence under s. 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. Google provided the blogging platform subject to conditions and had the power to block or remove content published in breach of those conditions. Following Mr Tamiz’s complaint, Google knew or ought to have known that it was causing or contributing to the ongoing publication of the offending material.

A ‘publisher’ for defamation purposes is not co-extensive with a ‘data controller’ for DPA purposes. Nonetheless, these issues in Tamiz resonate with those in the Google Spain case, and not just because of their ‘right to be forgotten’ subtext. Both cases raise this question: it is right to hold Google to account for its role in making false, inaccurate or misleading personal information available to members of the public? If it is, another question might also arise in due course: to what extent would Leveson-inspired amendments to the s. 32 DPA 1998 exemption (on which the ICO is consulting) affect service providers like Google?

Facebook, Google and jurisdiction

The Google Spain case also involves an important jurisdictional argument. Google’s headquarters are in California. It argued before the CJEU that Google Spain only sells advertising to the parent company, and that these complaints should therefore be considered under US data protection legislation. In other words, it argues, this is not a matter for EU data protection law at all. The Spanish authority argues that Google Spain’s ‘centre of gravity’ is in Spain: it links to Spanish websites, has a Spanish domain name and processes personal data about Spanish citizens and residents.

Victory for Google on this point would significantly curtail the data protection rights of EU citizens in this context.

Also on jurisdictional matters, Facebook has won an important recent victory in Germany. Schleswig-Holstein’s Data Protection Commissioner had ruled that Facebook’s ‘real names policy’ (i.e. its policy against accounts in psuedonymous names only) was unfair and unlawful. The German administrative court granted Facebook’s application for the suspension of that order on the grounds that the issue should instead be considered by the Irish Data Protection Authority, since Facebook is Dublin-based.

Here then, is an example of ‘one-stop shop’ arguments surfacing under current EU law. The ‘one-stop shop’ principle is clearly very important to businesses. In the Facebook case, it would no doubt say that its ‘home’ regulator understands its business much better and is therefore best equipped to assess the lawfulness of its practices. The future of EU law, however, is as much about consistency across member states as about offering a ‘one-stop shop’. The tension between ‘home ground advantage’ and EU-wide consistency is one of the more interesting practical issues in the current data protection debate.

Enforcement and penalties issued by the ICO

One of the most striking developments in UK data protection law in recent years has been the ICO’s use of its enforcement and (relatively new) monetary penalty powers.

On the enforcement front, the Tribunal has upheld the ICO’s groundbreaking notice issued against Southampton City Council for imposing audio recording requirements in taxis (see Panopticon’s post here).

The issuing of monetary penalties has continued apace, with the ICO having issued in the region of 30 notices in the last two years. In 2013, two have been issued.

One (£150,000) was on the Nursing and Midwifery Council, for losing three unencrypted DVDs relating to a nurse’s misconduct hearing, which included evidence from two vulnerable children. The second (£250,000) was on a private sector firm, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited, following the hacking of Sony’s PlayStation Network Platform in April 2011, which the ICO considered “compromise[ed] the personal information of millions of customers, including their names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth and account passwords. Customers’ payment card details were also at risk.”

In the only decision of its kind to date, the First-Tier Tribunal upheld a monetary penalty notice issued against Central London Community Care NHS Trust for faxing patient details to the wrong number (see Panopticon’s post here). The First-Tier Tribunal refused the Trust permission to appeal against that decision.

Other penalty notices are being appealed to the Tribunal – these include the Scottish Borders notice (which the Tribunal will consider next week) and the Tetrus Telecoms notice, the first to be issued under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.

It is only a matter of time before the Upper Tribunal or a higher court considers a monetary penalty notice case. At present, however, there is no binding case law. To that extent, the monetary penalty system is a somewhat uncertain business.

The question of EU-wide consistency raises more fundamental uncertainty, especially when one considers the mandatory fining regime proposed in the draft EU Regulation, with fines of up to €1,000,000 or 2% of the data controller’s global annual turnover.

By way of contrast, 13 administrative sanctions for data protection breaches were issued in France in 2012, the highest fine being €20,000. Enforcement in Germany happens at a regional level, with Schleswig-Holstein regarded as on the stricter end; overall however, few fines are issued in Germany. How the ‘one-stop shop’ principle, the consistency mechanism and the proposed new fining regime will be reconciled is at present anyone’s guess.

From a UK perspective, however, the only point of certainty as regards monetary penalty notices is that there will be no slowing down in the ICO’s consideration of such cases in the short- to medium-term.

It is of course too early to say whether the developments outlined above will elevate data protection law from a supporting to a leading role in protecting privacy. It is clear, however, that – love them or hate them – data protection duties are increasingly relevant and demanding.

Robin Hopkins