Tag: data protection

How to apply the DPA

Posted on | 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

Posted on | 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

Posted on | 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

Posted on | 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

Posted on | 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)

Posted on | 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