Source: https://www.gdprxpert.ie/
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 05:14:15
Document Index: 89890990

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 4', 'Art.4', 'Art.9', 'Art.6', 'Art.6', 'Art.6', 'Art.6', 'Art.9', 'Art.9', 'Art.9', 'Art.9', 'Art.4', 'Art.9', 'Art.9', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 6', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'Art. 83', 'Art. 82', 'Art.58', 'Art.83', 'CJEU ', 'Art.6', 'Arts 12', 'Art 34', 'Art. 47']

GDPR & Data Protection Consultants | GDPRXPERT
GDPR Introductory Consultation
Staff Training and Re-Training
Privacy Notices and Privacy Policy Statements
New Regulation. New Obligations. New Responsibilities.
GDPR & DATA PROTECTION CONSULTANTS
Protecting your business is our business!
GDPRXpert is here to help you navigate through the maze of new elements introduced by the GDPR and the ePrivacy Regulations. GDPRXpert specialises in data protection advice and consultancy, with a strong focus on the General Data Protection Regulation, and the ePrivacy Regulations (S.I. No.336 of 2011), under which the old ePrivacy Directive was transposed into Irish law.
In particular, since the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the data protection regulatory landscape has been irrevocably altered. A seismic shift has taken place because of the increase in the obligations and responsibilities now placed on many organisations. At the same time, the rights of the general public in relation to the processing of personal data have been strengthened.
You must be processing personal data to be subject to the GDPR. If this is the case , organisations involved in the processing of that personal data now have a higher burden of obligations and responsibilities.Since May 2018,processing of personal data in the context of certain electronic communications ( including , amongst other things,unsolicited electronic communication made by phone, e-mail and SMS) is subject to both the general laws set out out in the GDPR, and the more specific laws of the ePrivacy Regulations. The new ePrivacy Regulation is unlikely to come into effect before 2021 as negotiations on the draft text are ongoing.
Our expertise lies in translating all of these complex legal and regulatory requirements into cost effective and practical operational solutions for your business or organisation. The ultimate goal is compliance with all of the new regulatory requirements and data protection principles. In order for you to reach that goal, GDPRXpert will ensure you meet all the transparency and accountability criteria.
GDPR Xpert will get you started on the road to compliance with an initial consultation.
GDPR Xpert will carry out a full risk assessment based on the GDPR and all associated guidelines.
GDPR Xpert will carry out the roles, functions & duties of the DPO in an independent manner.
GDPR Xpert will conduct a comprehensive audit to verify the true level of compliance with the GDPR.
GDPR Xpert encourages employee training and /or retraining, that is quite specific to your organisation.
Privacy Notices/Privacy Policy Statements
GDPR Xpert will draft a Privacy Notice for your business or organisation that will comply with the GDPR.
KEEP UP TO DATE ON ALL THE LATEST GDPR INFORMATION AND SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Maybe your organisation does not process any personal data?
The definition of ‘personal data’ has been expanded under the new Regulation and now covers: …“any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person(‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person”. ( Art. 4(1), GDPR)
Maybe your organisation does process personal data?
This new definition of personal data covers many different types of personal data. If your organisation processes such data then you are subject to new responsibilities and obligations under the GDPR.
GDPRXpert is cognisant of these robust new obligations and responsibilities, and especially their positioning in the new data protection architecture. With a background in law, business and data protection, GDPRXpert is ideally qualified to offer professional advice in this complex area. Once it is clear that your organisation is processing personal data, the prudent thing to do is seek that expert advice. GDPRXpert is here to ensure that you and your organisation are processing that data in accordance with data protection principles, are transparent and accountable, and are compliant with all aspects of the new Regulation.
Remember! We are the GDPR &Data Protection Experts. You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to be compliant . Our expertise will get you there safely.
Covid -19 pandemic creates difficulties for many.
28th May 2020Latest NewsThe Covid-19 pandemic has created difficulties for many, especially employees and employers. Many business owners have not been able to continue paying their employees. This has resulted in the laying off of many employees. For employees, apart from anxiety over their own health and despite mortgage moratoriums et cetera, this has created financial difficulties. For employers, and especially SMEs the pandemic has the potential to deal a death blow to a business that took years to build up. As noted in a previous blog, when set in this backdrop, data protection concerns seem trivial. Nevertheless, just as fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be trampled on in a health crisis, neither can data protection rights. Indeed, because more sensitive categories of personal data are now being processed (health data, particularly)), more care should be taken to ensure that data protection rights under the GDPR are being respected and enforced. There must be at least one legal basis to process data and all principles must be abided by. What is often forgotten is that even where derogations from the GDPR apply, the principles must still be respected and applied in any personal data processing operation. While the rules should be obeyed even under extreme circumstances, these same data protection rules (such as the GDPR) do not hinder measures taken in the fight against the Coronavirus pandemic. It is conceivable that in times of emergency such as now, some data protection rules may be relaxed but it is unlikely they will ever be suspended or waived. Still, there have been many questions to GDPRXpert from clients unsure of aspects of GDPR, especially in the specific context of this pandemic. Covid-19 pandemic creates difficulties for many. At this time, we will take a look at some of the most common questions we have been asked. Question 1. I have many of my employees working from home at least temporarily. Are there any special precautions employers need to take in relation to personal data? Answer. Many people work from home, but clearly these numbers have increased since the pandemic. The first thing that those working from home must do from the outset is create the mindset that they are still working in the office. Remember, it is not feasible for employers to go and assess the suitability, or otherwise, of all ‘work from home locations’ (WFHL),so some basic and normal ground rules need to be emphasised. Employees must secure their data just as if they would in the office. To do this they must take the normal precautions, just as if they were still working at the place of employment. It is paramount they don’t allow family members, or anyone else, to just walk in to where they have set themselves up. For example, they should never leave personal data on view on a computer screen. Data protection consultants GDPRXpert frequently remind a client that is often the small oversight or lack of attention that leads to data being compromised. Employees should log off when leaving their work station or lock an area if too many people are coming and going. Working from a laptop on a couch is not a good idea if y sharing an apartment or house with others! There should be strict controls on the ability to download personal data from an organisation’s system files. If no relevant data protection policies are in place, now is the opportune time to enact some to govern how company assets and information can be accessed, where information can be stored, and how information can be transmitted. Employees must be quickly made aware of, and become competent about, the types of information considered to be confidential, trade secret, or otherwise protected. There is much anecdotal evidence of an upsurge in phishing attacks. In the US there has been a huge rise in fraud schemes related to Covid-19, with many businesses receiving fake e-mails purportedly from the Centre for Disease Control (CDC). These emails contain malicious attachments so employees at WFHL need to be extra vigilant. In all cases these fraudsters are attempting to have their targets access and verify personal information or credentials. Employers must train their employees on how to detect and handle such scams and keep them informed about the latest threats. It is a good idea to have regular video conferencing with staff to facilitate Q&A sessions and update everyone on the latest threats. It also helps staff morale. Only those whose essential job duties place them in the ‘need to know’ employee classification should have access to ‘special category data’, which includes health data. It is best practice to carefully review any Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) agreements, if any are in place between you and employees. In this scenario, and where special category data are being processed, it is vital that all information is encrypted in transit and while at rest on the device. For example, many in the healthcare field are now working remotely and collecting health data. In the absence of special arrangements these remote employees should be utilizing company-issued equipment and not saving company data to personal laptops, flash drives, or personal cloud storage services such as Google Drive. It is true to say that the risks for the employer are numerous, so all care should be taken in relation to BYOD agreements. Any employer should seek to ensure that those practices do not compromise the security of, and your right of access to, your information and data, and that your policies comply with all attendant legal obligations. In the conventional office working setting it is easy to have a quick word in an employee’s ear if an employer becomes aware of any breach of, or indiscretion concerning, a BYOD agreement. It is more complicated when employees are working remotely. Best and safe practice is for employers to consider periodic reminders of the BYOD policy and offer training sessions, as well as ongoing education regarding the importance of protecting the employer’s trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information and data. There should be strict controls on the ability to download personal data from an organisation’s system files. “There is no questioning the advantages of BYOD agreements. It is a growing trend, one that may already be occurring at your company. Employers are implementing policies and practices that permit, or even require, their employees to use their personal electronic devices (e.g., laptops and smart phones) and data services (e.g., backup and file-sharing software) for work-related purposes. The appeal of such Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) practices for both employers and employees is undeniable. Employers avoid the up-front costs and administrative hassle of purchasing laptops and smart phones as well as employees’ demands for the latest and greatest gadgets, and employees do not have to carry around multiple devices. Overall, this is a much simpler and more efficient way of doing business, right?”(Elaine Harwell, Senior Counsel, Procopio). There are security considerations nevertheless, and here are some aspects that demand careful attention. Your BYOD policy should cover a broad range of topics, including: Which employees are permitted to use personal devices for work purposes; Acceptable and unacceptable use of personal devices for work purposes; Your ownership of and right of access to all employer data on employees’ personal devices and employees’ lack of privacy rights in that data; Your security and data protection protocols; Your employees’ obligations with respect to maintaining the security of employer data (e.g., a provision requiring employees to protect all devices that contain employer data with a password or PIN); A disclaimer that the employer is not responsible for the security of the employee’s personal data; Reimbursement for the employee’s use of his or her personal devices; and Rules and/or restrictions regarding work-related use of personal devices outside of working hours. Question 2. Can an employer let employees know the identity of a co-worker who has contracted Covid19? Answer. We know that personal data includes an identifier such as a name. Processing includes inter alia, “…disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available…” Therefore, sharing the name of an employee who has contracted Covid-19 constitutes personal data processing. ‘Data concerning health’ under Art.4 GDPR includes any personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person …which reveal information about his/her health status. In this instance we have an employee’s name, which is ‘ordinary’ personal data, and data concerning health, which falls under ‘special category data’ under Art.9 GDPR. Processing rules vary depending on the categorisation of the data involved. The legal bases for processing also differ, again depending on the category of the data. In line with the confidentiality principle, the general rule is that the identity of an affected employee should not be disclosed to his/her colleagues or any other third parties without some legal basis or very strong justification. Having been informed by previous experiences we know that the smaller the business is, the more easily the identity of the co-worker will become known. Even in larger companies a person’s absence will be noticed and lead to unhelpful speculation, much of it on social media, as to who exactly has the virus. This speculation would be upsetting for those wrongly identified as having Covid 19. It is usually not necessary, and often will not serve a legitimate purpose to disclose the identity of an employee with Covid 19. Employers are under a legal obligation to ensure the health and safety of employees Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 ). Informing employees of an infectious disease in the workplace would be a statutory duty (also a common law duty with an attached duty of care). Indeed, employers should carry out a risk assessment to identify the risks of a coronavirus outbreak at work, and implement steps to minimise that risk. That said, (even in the absence of obligations under health and safety legislation) it would be expected that employees would be informed of any case of Covid 19 in a work setting in order that staff could self isolate or work from home. Any information disclosed should always be limited to the minimum necessary for a specific purpose. Someone’s identity, normally and generally, should be disclosed only where absolutely necessary and on a strict need to know basis. As evident from a notice by the DPC the key word may be ‘generally’. “Any data that is processed must be treated in a confidential manner i.e. any communications to staff about the possible presence of coronavirus in the workplace should not generally identify any individual employees.” The DPC also states that “the identity of affected individuals should not be disclosed to any third parties or to their colleagues without a clear justification.”We note it does not state ‘without a clear legal basis under GDPR’. There is a world of difference between the two. Any test of what is ‘clear justification’ either does not exist, or is a subjective test. Who decides what a ‘clear justification’ is? Does a justification have to be set within a legal basis? The ultimate arbiter on this is the CJEU. It is a facile exercise to set out a justification for an action, rather than ground it on a legal basis. From a practical perspective, to allay fears amongst all employees who are wondering how close their contact was with the infected employee, a common sense approach would be to ascertain whether the infected employee would consent to his identity being made known to his/her co-workers, with the aim of more effectively safeguarding those co-workers. For example, if a worker in a very large manufacturing plant became infected it would cause undue stress to many employees if no other information was forthcoming from the employer. Employees will worry and wonder about how close they were to the infected individual. If an employer is too specific about the area of the plant where the infected employee worked, it may be tantamount to naming the individual. The circumstances and details of any particular case will determine the nature and quality of the dilemma facing the employer. There is no avoiding the reality that not knowing who exactly in your place of employment has contracted Covid-19 will cause undue stress on that person’s co-workers. As noted many times, data protection rights under the GDPR, and data protection and privacy rights under the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights respectively, involve a balancing exercise with other rights. In cases like the present one, the unprecedented circumstances involved in the whole scenario suggest to us that a common-sense approach is an option that many will consider. It is an approach that carries some risk. In normal circumstances a person’s identity should not be disclosed, but in very extreme situations, such as the present one, a justifiable case could be made for releasing a person’s identity. This action is still fraught with danger, and if an employee files a complaint it will be up to the DPC at first instance to give a decision. An employer’s justification in releasing the identity of the coronavirus victim may not withstand scrutiny by the DPC. The best advice is not to release a person’s identity unless you have obtained explicit written consent from the employee. Where explicit consent is not forthcoming our advice would be to state that a co-worker, who cannot be named at this time, has contracted covid-19. How much more information is conveyed to co-workers is dependent upon the particular, and possibly unique, circumstances of an individual situation. There will be cases where, for example, an employer will conclude that the health and safety of all employees is best served by disclosing the identity of the employee with Covid-19. In such a situation, and because of the statutory duty on the employer by virtue of health and safety, there is at least an arguable case. Remember, although set in a different work context, ‘the indications of impending harm to health arising from stress at work must colleagues may be infected, but they should only reveal their names if national law allows it; if they can justify that such a step is necessary: and only after the affected workers have been be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise he/she should do something about it’. (Hatton v Sutherland 2 All E.R. 1) Ultimately, the roadblock may be formed by the twin concepts of ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ that permeate through the GDPR and EU law.Views on the issue are by no means unanimous across the EU. A most recent guidance note from the European Data Protection Board says ‘employers should inform staff that colleagues may be infected but they should only reveal their names if national law allows it if they can justify that such a step is necessary; and only after the affected workers have been informed/consulted beforehand.’ Earlier we saw the slightly differing view from the DPC guidance. The U.K. ICO also takes a slightly different view. “You should keep staff informed about cases in your organisation. Remember, you probably don’t need to name individuals and you shouldn’t provide more information than necessary. You have an obligation to ensure the health and safety of your employees as well as a duty of care. Data protection doesn’t prevent you doing this.” The identity of affected individuals must not be disclosed to their colleagues or third parties without a clear justification. The Appropriate Lawful Bases. The HSE and other public health authorities would be seeking details concerning any Covid- 19 case in any context. Certain information is always needed so that authorities can effectively carry out their functions. Only recently Covid-19 was declared a ‘notifiable’ infectious disease under recent legislation. Medical doctors are mandated to report cases to the Medical Officer under the Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Regulations 2020. There is no equivalent legislation covering employers. Strangely, employers are not mandated to report infectious diseases to the Health and Safety Authority. Employees under the 2005 ct are mandated to report to their employer or the employer’s nominated registered medical practitioner if they become aware of any disease which affects their performance of work activities that could give rise to risks for the health , safety, and welfare of others at work. A clear duty is imposed on all employees to protect themselves and others. However, employers under the 2005 Act are under a legal obligation to protect employees from issues that affect their health and safety, in a negative manner. Clearly, this could easily be construed to include the novel coronavirus. This could act as a lawful basis for processing personal data. Processing could also be justified on the basis of Art.6 (1(d) that it is ‘necessary to protect the vital interests of the individual data subject (employee) or other persons (other employees or other people). An employer could also find a legal basis for processing the personal data under Art.6 (1) (f) GDPR where “processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party…” Where an employer relies on this legal basis, he/she should document the ‘legitimate interests assessment’ that has been made. In certain cases the person’s identity will be needed. For example, authorities may need to interview the employee who has contracted the disease. Recital 46 GDPR states “some types of processing may serve both important grounds of public interest (lawful under Art.6 (1) (e) ) and the vital interests of the data subject (Art.6(1)(d)), as for instance where processing is necessary for humanitarian purposes, including for monitoring epidemics and their spread…” Where the employer shares information, the sharing should be in compliance with GDPR and, most especially, the principles. In many cases employees themselves may fully consent to having their identities made known or they will make it known themselves. If so, in those cases the personal data will have been ‘manifestly made public’. It is questionable whether the consent of an employee to processing of his /her own personal data would constitute valid consent. It has not been definitively set out in the context of the employer/employee relationship but Recital 43 makes it clear consent is not a valid legal ground “where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority…” GDPRXpert has not found any case law to support the view that an employer/employee relationship would satisfy the ‘clear imbalance test’. Undoubtedly, the average employee could feel pressurised into giving consent. It is something that will fall for future decision on a case by case basis. What is noteworthy is that the reference to a clear imbalance in the context of an employment relationship, which had been included in an earlier draft of the GDPR, was deleted in the enacted regulation. Health Data Processing Where data concerning health are involved, the situation changes. As we know there is a general prohibition on the processing of ‘special category’ data, which includes data concerning health. There are a number of exceptions to this broad prohibition, including under Art.9 (2) GDPR and sections of the DPA 2018. These provide potential legal bases for processing health data for the purposes of Covid-19 containment. S.46 DPA 2018 and Art.9(2)(b) permit the processing of health data where necessary and proportionate for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation under Irish employment law – employers are legally obliged to ensure the safety, health and welfare at work of their employees. Specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and interests of the data subject (employee) must be taken. Perhaps the most appropriate legal basis for processing health data is found under Art.9(2)(i) GDPR and s.53 DPA 2018, both of which provide exceptions to the general rule. Here the processing is deemed necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health such as protecting against cross border threats to health. Both must be underpinned by law (EU/Member State) providing suitable and specific measures to safeguard rights and freedoms of the data subject (employee). Examples of suitable safeguards would be limitation on access to the data, strict time limits for erasure, and other measures such as adequate staff training to protect the data protection rights of individuals. S.52 DPA 2018 and Art.9(2)(h) GDPR also offer a sound legal basis as both provide, inter alia, for processing for the purposes of preventative or occupational medicine, and for assessment of the working capacity of an employee. Necessity and proportionality are always underlying considerations. Question 3. Can employers ask for travel and medical information from employees and from visitors coming to the workplaces of employers? Answer. Employers as we noted earlier are under a legal obligation to protect the health of their employees and to maintain a safe place of work. (Safety, Health and Welfare Act, 2005). There would be justification for employers asking employees and visitors about recent travel, in their efforts to prevent or contain the spread of Covid-19 in the workplace. This would be especially so, where they are worried about any possible travel to Covid-19 hotspots. Employers have a legal obligation to protect the health of their employees and maintain a safe place of work. In this regard, employers would be justified in asking employees and visitors to inform them if they have visited an affected area and/or are experiencing symptoms. If travel has taken place as part of an employee’s duties then those details are known already to an employer. The question then becomes one of asking about personal travel destinations and the presence of any Covid-19 symptoms. In Ireland the DPC has given recommendations on Covid-19 and these support the view that it is reasonable to ask an employee such questions. Implementation of more stringent requirements, such as a questionnaire, would have to have a strong justification based on necessity and proportionality and on an assessment of risk. It is advisable to be sensible when asking employees to provide personal information about their likelihood of risk and not to ask for more than you genuinely need. Out of the 28 national data protection authorities of European Union member states, some 20 EU countries have issued specific guidance regarding COVID-19 and data protection so far. We are beginning to see several core principles emerge from this guidance: COVID-19 sensitive personal data, such as medical symptoms and diagnosis, travel history, and contacts with those who have been diagnosed can be processed on the basis of safeguarding public health. The fact that an employee has tested positive for COVID-19 can be disclosed, but identifying information about the individual, in particular the individual’s name, should not be disclosed. European DPAs have scrutinized if not discouraged or prohibited mass surveillance techniques by data controllers, such as use of questionnaires or temperature checks, other than those performed by health authorities. Security measures must still be implemented to protect COVID-19 personal data. What the foregoing has shown is that some issues around data protection in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic are complicated. The coronavirus pandemic has brought forth evidence of how interpretations of some articles in the GDPR vary within jurisdictions. Member states (MS) have been given some latitude in making changes and additions to the GDPR, but Covid-19 has exposed a lack of consistency in interpretation of portions of the GDPR across the EU. This is something we will look at closely in the future, and as the pandemic expands in a potentially lethal manner globally. Patrick Rowland, GDPRXpert.ie. We are GDPR and Data Protection consultants with bases in Carlow/Kilkenny and Mayo, offering a nationwide service. For more details visit www.gdprxpert.ie...
The ongoing Covid-19 raises life and death questions.
6th April 2020Latest NewsThe ongoing Covid-19 pandemic raises life and death questions all over the globe. Data protection concerns in this context appear trivial and insignificant. As the DPC has stated, “data protection law does not stand in the way of the provision of healthcare and the management of public health issues; nevertheless there are important considerations which should be taken into account when handling personal data in these contexts, particularly health and other sensitive data”. Nevertheless, some questions raised will remain as contentious issues long after Covid-19 has been clinically controlled. There is no need to remind anyone how the pandemic raises life and death questions. People are getting sick and many people are dying . Identified and Identifiable There was much debate and controversy surrounding the lack of specific geographic details provided by health officials in relation to confirmed cases of Covid-19. One view was that the GDPR was being cited as a reason not to provide more precise details as this could lead to someone’s identity being disclosed. Remember that from Art.4 (1) “‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name…location data…or to one or more factors specific to the physical…cultural or social identity of that natural person;”.It is well established that non- disclosure of a person’s name, in and of itself, is not always a guarantee of anonymity. Even when special category data processing is allowed by derogation, it does not mean there is any derogation from the applicability of data protection principles. On the contrary, these are always applicable. In fact, it is especially important to abide by all data protection principles in relation to these more ‘sensitive categories’ of data, to use the term from the old Data Protection Acts. Unquestionably, a person’s identity could quickly become public knowledge if a very precise geographical location was provided by the public health authorities. It would not be long before people would be able, by a process of elimination and observation, (hopefully, not surveillance!) to identify people in a particular area that were in isolation because they had tested positive for the virus or had been in recent contact with someone who had tested positive. Location data Although the health authorities are doing their best to ensure a person does not become identifiable, the possibility of this happening increases directly as the information disclosed becomes more detailed .Take the case of the un-named school that was closed because students had recently returned from a school trip to Northern Italy. Health authorities consistently refused to name the school, despite the fact it had been immediately identified on social media. Their policy of non-disclosure was rendered meaningless. The truth is this type of information becomes public knowledge very quickly. In the midst of a pandemic people are understandably more inquisitive, and it is quite possible anyone who was on the school trip to Italy and succumbed to the virus would be identified in a timely manner. What is clear so far is that the health authorities are determined to keep information to a minimum so that precise geographical locations are not revealed. This is why we have been hearing about a case in the South or the East etc. but no towns or cities had, at least initially, been named. Some politicians prefer more specifics on locations of so-called clusters of infection. Different views or rationales can be taken of this policy approach. One view is that naming the location precisely might, in combination with other information available to local residents, make an individual or individuals readily identifiable. This could cause panic to people in the immediate region and distress to patients and their families. Another view is that if the precise location was given, then residents in proximity to that area might be on higher alert leading to greater caution in their personal social interactions. The policy has been defended on other grounds by Dr. Tony Holohan. It is seen as designed to protect the privacy of individuals on the basis that people are less likely to come forward if they fear their identity will be made known. This would be another hurdle in the race to quantify and track the extent of the pandemic. For the public interest/of public interest All views have their merits but any view carries an underlying interpretation of what is ‘for the public interest’. Undoubtedly, the question is a subjective one, and in instances such as a public health emergency caused by a pandemic, what constitutes the “public interest” is properly evaluated by the health authorities and the government. Within this context, under Art.9 (2)(h), Art.9(2)(i) and S.53 DPA 2018 lie the specific exceptions to the general prohibition on processing of special categories of personal data, which includes health data. Derogations from the general prohibition are allowed, but subject to suitable safeguards having been put in place to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects. Such safeguards may include limitation on access to the data, strict time limits for erasure, and other measures such as adequate staff training to protect the data protection rights of individuals. There are many lawful bases for processing personal data. Consent is one of them but it is by no means the strongest. It can be withdrawn at any time. Indeed, the GDPR provides for the legal grounds to enable competent public health authorities (and employers) to process personal data in the context of epidemics, without the need to obtain the consent of the data subject. This applies for instance when the processing of personal data is necessary for the employers for reasons of public interest in the area of public health or to protect vital interests (Art. 6 and 9 of the GDPR) or to comply with another legal obligation. A valid distinction needs to be made at the outset between what is “for the public interest” and what is “of interest to the public”. I am fairly certain that it was Minister Simon Harris who was recently criticised for making a distinction between the two, but he was correct in his assessment. What he was trying to explain was that because some information is ‘of interest to the public’ does not mean its disclosure is made legitimate or justifiable by a motive of public interest. Would disclosing the information do more harm than good? It has elements of the harm principle of the utilitarian philosophy espoused especially by J.S. Mills and Jeremy Bentham. In essence, the lesser harm for the greater good. The courts and many statutes frequently refer to the public interest but “ there is no single satisfactory definition of what the public interest is”.( See, Kelleher, Privacy and Data Protection Law in Ireland, 2nd ed. at p.175) It might be more incisive to simply ask what is in the best interests of the public at large. In the context of a Freedom of Information case in an Australian Federal Court, Justice Brian Tamberlin wrote the following: The public interest is not one homogenous undivided concept. It will often be multi-faceted and the decision-maker will have to consider and evaluate the relative weight of these facets before reaching a final conclusion as to where the public interest resides. This ultimate evaluation of the public interest will involve a determination of what are the relevant facets of the public interest that are competing and the comparative importance that ought to be given to them so that “the public interest” can be ascertained and served. In some circumstances, one or more considerations will be of such overriding significance that they will prevail over all others. In other circumstances, the competing considerations will be more finely balanced so that the outcome is not so clearly predictable. For example, in some contexts, interests such as public health, national security, anti-terrorism, defence or international obligations may be of overriding significance when compared with other considerations.( McKinnon v Secretary, Dept. of Treasury FCAFC) The term eludes precise definition but at its core is concern with the welfare or well-being of the general public and society. Data protection law and GDPR have often to be balanced against other rights such as freedom of expression. Today we are seeing with Covid-19 government actions how the public interest motive in the area of public health far outweighs personal rights and freedoms. What is, or indeed what is not, in the public interest often depends on the context in which it is being examined. Mr Justice Barrett in Dublin Waterworld v National Sports Campus Development Authority IEHC 518(7 Nov 204) stated, “disputes are likely to be of interest to the public but that does not make their resolution a matter of public interest”. S.53 DPA 2018 uses the terms “for public interest reasons in the area of public health including… ” The terminology of Art. 9(2)(i) is similar and refers to “processing necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health…” Processing of special categories of personal data including health data is clearly permissible under GDPR and the DPA 2018. “Processing” under the GDPR includes, amongst others, “dissemination”, but this does not mean it is permissible to freely share the information with the general public. Dissemination, as a form of processing must itself follow the data protection principles and respect, amongst others, the principle of purpose limitation. If the personal data is initially collected (processed) for the public interest in the area of health, is the dissemination (for example, through the coronavirus daily briefings) in line with this original purpose? It is likely that the answer is yes. The best informed view is that the dissemination just represents another type or form of processing and the purpose remains the same. Anyway, Art. 6(4) GDPR allows for a ‘compatibility (of purpose) test’, in situations where the processing is for a purpose other than that for which the data have been collected and is not based on consent or Union or Member State law. The concept of “public interest” at general law is wide –ranging and expansive. A classic dictum is that is of Lord Hailsham that “the categories of public interest are not closed” (D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children AC 171 at 230) There are… several different features and facets of interest which form the public interest. On the other hand, in the daily affairs of the community events occur which attract public attention. Such events of interest to the public may or may not be ones which are for the benefit of the community; it follows that such form of interest per se is not a facet of the public interest (DPP v Smith [1991) 1 VR 63 at 75). The public interest is not the same as that which may be of interest to the public. We have seen in many previous blogs how data protection rights do not exist in isolation, nor do they trump other rights. At any time the Government can decide to be more forthcoming and more specific with information concerning Covid -19. The deciding factor will be whether it is in the public interest to do so. If that time ever comes the government will still be mindful of the obligation to protect the anonymity of any individual who may have contracted the infection. In an upcoming blog we will share common data protection concerns in the context of the coronavirus that have been raised by many of our clients through our website. Patrick Rowland, GDPRXpert.ie We are GDPR and data protection consultants with bases in Carlow/Kilkenny and Mayo, offering a nationwide service. For more details visit www.gdprxpert.ie...
20th February 2020Latest NewsThe GDPR hasn’t gone away. In fact, the truth is that it is really just getting started as regulators, not all, become more assured in their own compliance policies and strategies. In previous blog posts we looked at the first annual report from the DPC since the GDPR was introduced in May 2018. Following on from that, we did an evaluation of the effectiveness of the GDPR which assessed its effectiveness about 15 months past its inception. The GDPR has once again been the subject of debate recently, with this debate emanating from the perspective of enforcement. Most notably, there has been harsh criticism of the Irish DPC because of a perceived reticence to impose fines. Whether this is justified is examined below. Some Quick Stats The most up to date information on the application of the GDPR throughout the EU/EEA provides the following: More than 6,700 data breaches were notified to Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) last year, the second highest level of notifications recorded per capita across Europe. Since its implementation in May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) led to over 160,000 data breach notifications across Europe, according to research from multinational law firm DLA Piper. From this total of 160,000, there were about 100,000 reported for 2019. A recent report by DLA Piper showed the Netherlands topped the table with 40,647 data breach notifications reported. The same country had a per capita ratio of 147.2 per 100,000. Ireland had a per capita ratio of 132.52 per 100,000, ranking second in the table followed by Denmark. European regulators have imposed €114 million in fines (for data breaches) under the GDPR regime to date, with a further €329 million in sanctions threatened. ( See, ‘Ireland ranked second in Europe for data breach notifications’ ) Fines Of most interest to data protection professionals is the type and amount of fines that have been issued to date. In this context it is enlightening to remember that the Irish DPC is the lead regulator for many companies such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and others. This is in part due to the ‘one stop shop ‘mechanism introduced under the GDPR. Based on the figures for data breach notifications shown above it would be expected that the Irish DPC would have issued numerous fines at this point in time. New figures compiled by the Italian data protection body Osservatarorio di Federprivacy – which includes data from official sources in 30 countries – show authorities in the EU/EEA imposed 190 fines in 2020.Italy was the most active data protection authority, with 30 actions last year, while the UK was the most punitive, with fines totalling €312 million, some 76 per cent of all sanctions issued. Among the companies to be facing fines are British Airways and Marriot, which are looking at bills totalling £183 million (€214.8 million) and £99 million respectively after being sanctioned by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office last year. Only Ireland and Italy failed to impose any fines. On its face, a failure to impose fines is disconcerting and raises questions about the practical operation of the GDPR. One of the partners at DLA Piper who specialises in cyber security and data protection, suggested fines have been low relative to “potential maximum fines” of €20 million ($22.2 million) or 4% of annual global turnover, “indicating that we are still in the early days of enforcement.“We expect to see momentum build with more multi-million Euro fines being imposed over the coming year as regulators ramp up their enforcement activity.” More on Fines While Ireland’s DPC has failed to fine anyone, the French regulator has seen fit to fine Google €50million for failing to comply with GDPR obligations. Indeed, the French top the rankings for the level of fines imposed (€51mill.), followed by the Germans (€24.5 mill.), and the Austrians (€18mill.). There is no questioning the ability of the DPC to issue fines, but some are beginning to question a willingness to issue fines. In particular, the Italian regulator has taken the opportunity to level some criticism at the perceived lack of action by the DPC in Ireland. That regulator has tabulated figures, which include data from official sources in 30 countries, showing authorities in the EU/EEA imposed 190 fines in 2019. Italy itself was the most active data protection authority, with 30 actions last year, even though it was one of the lowest in terms of breach notification numbers. The UK was identified as the most punitive with fines totalling €312million representing 76% of all sanctions meted out. Federprivacy chairman Nicola Bernardi said the failure of the Irish Data Protection Commission to issue fines thus far is a concern given the large number of leading tech companies based here. He expressed concerns that technology companies may be treated with more leniency in Ireland than in other jurisdictions and called for greater consistency to be applied across the EU for dealing with sanctions. So is the criticism justified? The Irish DPC has 61 statutory enquiries under way, 21 of which are focused on tech multi-national firms. These include Facebook (8), Twitter (3), Apple (3), Google (1) and LinkedIn (1). (See, ‘Data Breaches in Ireland among highest in EU’. Adrian Weckler, Irish Independent, Jan. 20, 2020.) Informed sources have said the Data Protection Commission is in the final stages of its investigation into WhatsApp over possible breaches of EU data privacy rules, with a draft decision expected to be circulated to other authorities to consider within weeks. This is the first of the commission’s many investigations to approach its end point, with delays blamed on complications that arise from pursuing companies that operate cross-border. Verdicts are expected in the Twitter and Whatsapp cases very soon, according to DPC officials. Helen Dixon has distanced herself from any speculation on the amount of fines that may be imposed, while stating that the recent fine of $5billion levied on Facebook in the U.S. by the FTC is unlikely to be repeated here. In defence. What is clear to informed data protection professionals such as GDPRXpert is that there are extenuating circumstances that explain the non –imposition of fines to date by the DPC. Undoubtedly, a major contributory factor in non-imposition of fines so far has been the volume and complexity of current investigations. Both of these factors have combined to delay the final verdict. Until there is a final verdict rendered, there can be no announcement of any fine. So any criticism must take account of the quantity, the nature, and the attendant quality of investigations that are still incomplete. As noted earlier, the cross- border nature of many of the investigations adds to the complexity. These particular investigations just take time. Every investigation has to be placed within its own particular context. Going back to the stats on breach notification, we saw that Denmark placed third in the table for breach notifications. This needs to be viewed in a manner detached from its apparent face value. Many of the breach notifications are related to sending the information of one data subject to the wrong recipient, often in an otherwise secure manner, so the majority of breaches are not severe. It is all too easy to make general assumptions from bare statistics or numbers. Context is crucial to a true understanding. Commenting on the country’s top-three position in the GDPR index, Allan Frank, an ICT security specialist at Datatilsynet, Denmark’s data protection regulator, said: “We don’t see Denmark as more prone to cyber-attack.”Instead, Frank said, the country’s public and private sectors were accustomed to “reporting to public authorities in different matters” – including data breaches – through a single web portal. Earlier in the blog we saw that France had imposed the highest amount in fines, (almost entirely coming from the Google fine) but yet had a very low ranking for the number of breach notifications per capita. There is no direct relationship between breach notifications and the imposition of fines. It has more to do with the nature of a breach and the particular type of breach. There is no automatic fine for merely communicating a breach. What is more salient is whether there was an outright infringement of the regulation that caused the data breach. “The investigation of cross-border issues is highly complex and takes time to complete, highlighted by the fact that there have been very few decisions with fines issued under the GDPR in relation to cross-border investigations across all 28 EU supervisory authorities since the application of the GDPR in May 2018,” said deputy commissioner Graham Doyle. In principle, regulators can impose fines of 2% or, in some cases 4%, of global turnover. In practice, they will have to judge whether such a heavy penalty would stand up in court, said DLA Piper partner Ross McKean. It’s going to take time – the regulators are going to be wary about going to 4% because they are going to get appealed,” McKean told Reuters. “And you lose credibility as a regulator if you’re blown up on appeal”. Therefore, it seems logical and represents good practice on the part of the DPC to complete the full investigative process before any discussion in relation to fines is broached. What we are likely to witness in the future will be fines being assessed more quickly in the light of the degree of severity of the failure to comply with obligations under the GDPR. Data breach notifications are often the beginning of the fine process. GDPR was aiming at this from the outset. This is reflected in the framework of the Regulation. For example, Art. 83 sets out the appropriate maximum for fines, based on the nature of the infringement. It establishes a sort of hierarchy of infringements. The overriding factor is that the fines be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. Art. 82.3 (a-k) lays out factors and conditions to be considered when making the assessment on the need for, or the appropriate amount of, a fine, if one is to be imposed. These are categorically delineated and leave few questions. Any fine can be imposed instead of, or in addition to, corrective measures referred to in points (a) to (h) and (j) of Art.58(2). Art.83 (5) lays down the upper limits of fines for infringement of certain provisions of the regulation. Any non compliance with an order of the DPC can also be subject to a maximum fine of €2million or in the case of an undertaking 4% of total worldwide turnover in the preceding year, whichever is greater. In relation to the cases before the DPC currently, it is only proper and prudent to leave no stone unturned in any investigation, especially bearing in mind the substantial quantum of fines, for which undertakings in particular may be liable. Informed sources have said the Data Protection Commission is in the final stages of its investigation into WhatsApp over possible breaches of EU data privacy rules, with a draft decision expected to be circulated to other authorities to consider within weeks. “This is the first of the commission’s many investigations to approach its end point with delays blamed on complications that arise from pursuing companies that operate cross-border.”( Charlie Taylor, Irish Times, 20 Jan. 2020, ‘Ireland ranked second in Europe for data breach notifications’) It seems to GDPRXpert that the DPC is in a kind of ‘no win’ situation. Had the DPC left the ‘big fish’ until later and gone after the ‘smaller fish’, (smaller companies and SMEs) criticism would have been relentless from vested interests. A popular view would have held the DPC lacked the will to challenge Google, Facebook, Apple etc. Yet the DPC was not going on fishing expeditions with the investigations that commenced. There were valid reasons, many stemming from data breach notifications. Nevertheless, there is a view that holds that the DPC should have had a mixture of investigations in the early days of the GDPR. This would have sent out the message that GDPR compliance is expected from all, not just the ‘big boys’. There is validity to that view, with strong anecdotal evidence suggesting smaller businesses, in particular, have not been giving the GDPR the attention it demands. Many feel the DPC is busy elsewhere. That may be true for now. What may be lost in all of this is that, if a business comes to the attention of the DPC through a data breach, that business will be expected to show what exactly they have done since May 2018! There will be no excuses for a failure to be in compliance so long past the introduction of the GDPR. Patrick Rowland, GDPRXpert.ie We are GDPR and Data Protection consultants with bases in Carlow/Kilkenny and Mayo, offering a nationwide service. For more details visit www.gdprxpert.ie ...
Public Accounts Committee’s Request for Information and GDPR
15th January 2020Latest NewsLast year the Public Accounts Committee sent a request for information to the Dept.of Finance in relation to fees charged to that department by barristers. In a previous blog, data protection consultants GDPRXpert discussed examples of how the GDPR was used as an excuse for not supplying information, in situations where supplying the information was perfectly legitimate. Some examples showed how ill-informed people were, while others belonged at the farcical and ludicrous end of the spectrum. What we are examining today lies at the more nuanced end. Legitimate positions can be taken by both sides but to repeat what we have stated previously, the GDPR does not exist in isolation. Rather, it is about balancing rights and proportionality. Remember the removal of the visitor books from the heritage sites? If you wish to refresh your memory on this go to this GDPRXpert blog. BACKGROUND The Public Accounts Committee The Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) is) is a standing committee of Dáil Éireann which focuses on ensuring public services are run efficiently and achieve value for money. It acts as a public spending watchdog and by virtue of this role it has become one of the most powerful Oireachtas committees. It has a key role to play in ensuring that there is accountability and transparency in the way government agencies allocate, spend and manage their finances, and guaranteeing that the taxpayer receives value for money. PAC is a standing committee of the Dáil and is responsible for examining and reporting on reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on departmental expenditure and certain other accounts. It also considers the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports on his or her examinations of economy, efficiency, effectiveness evaluation systems, procedures, and practices. Despite a recent adverse court decision relating to questioning of former Rehab Ireland CEO Patricia Kerins, the committee can rightly claim to do an excellent oversight job on behalf of the Irish taxpayer. Our view is clear. That particular episode was caused by some overzealous committee members and an overzealous chairman. ‘Over the top’ is the most appropriate colloquialism to describe the treatment of Ms Kerins. Giving the judgment of the entire court the Chief Justice stated, “the actions of the PAC as a whole were such they condoned the “significant departure” by at least three members of PAC from the terms of its invitation to Ms Kerins to appear before it”. (See Irish Times, 29 May 2019, “Supreme Court says PAC treated Angela Kerins in ‘unlawful’ manner”). The most consistent criticism stemmed from the manner in which PAC acted outside its remit and terms of reference. Our view is that the PAC performs an excellent oversight job to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Data protection consultants GDPRXpert.ie were impressed by the committee when it recently had Helen Dixon and some of her staff at a hearing in September of last year (2019). GDPRXpert.ie are making that link available here. At present, the committee has an excellent chairperson in Sean Fleming, and well-briefed committed members. Apple is happy to appeal The Apple Money There was much criticism from public representatives, the media and the general public when the Government decided to appeal the decision in the Apple case. Indeed, Fintan O’Toole described it as a disastrous miscalculation. The European Commission had found that Ireland had provided €13BN to Apple, which in the opinion of the Commission represented illegal state aid under EU Competition Law. The Commission said Apple’s tax arrangements in Ireland gave it ‘a significant advantage over other businesses that are subject to the same national taxation rules’, violating EU state aid laws. Although the government had indicated back in 2016 its intention to appeal the decision it was still compelled to collect the money owed. Over €14BN (principal amount + interest) was placed in an escrow account by Apple, until the appeal process is concluded. At the end of last year, the government confirmed that over €7Million had been spent on legal fees, consultancy fees, and other related costs. Money, money, money. Bearing in mind the role of the PAC which we have described earlier, it was to be expected that the committee may have had questions about the use of public money in the context of this appeal. Legal fees formed the bulk of the costs associated with the appeal to date, and the appeal process is still not exhausted. There is a possibility that, depending upon the result from the lower General Court, the case could yet end up before the CJEU and drag on for a few more years. The knowledge that this possibility was real may have augmented the desire of the PAC for some further information on the value for money aspect of the legal fees. The Dept of Finance was responsible for the payment of the legal and other costs associated with the appeal. The GDPR Perspective Prior to the introduction of the GDPR there never seemed to be an impediment to the release of legal fees charged by legal teams involved in, for example, the various tribunals over the years. Legal firms were named and their charges were public knowledge (thanks to the terms of reference and /or the FOI Act). A PAC report from January 2011 details how legal fees can reach exorbitant levels and the vast amounts paid to individual legal professionals. Again, there is no surprise and nothing unexpected or unusual in the PAC requesting the information on barrister charges in relation to the Apple appeal. What is surprising is the response of the Dept. of Finance to this request for information. A response from the Dept. briefly outlined its reason for its non-compliance with the request for information. In essence, the Dept cited the GDPR as the justification for not acceding to the request. The rationale seems to be very simplistic and dogmatic: The information is personal data under the GDPR; We have a lawful basis to process personal data but in this case, our advice is not to share the data; The individual right to privacy trumps any right the PAC may have to access the data; and that’s our story and we’re sticking to it! Individual’s right to privacy V Public Interest Some possible solutions Names of tax defaulters are published by the Revenue Commissioners. The commissioners have a clear legal basis for this under the Tax Consolidation Acts. Despite being underpinned by legislation it still represents an interference with privacy rights. Crucially, it is not disproportionate and is done in the public interest. It is arguable that this is much more invasive than a barrister’s fees being disclosed to the PAC. Any barrister doing legal work for govt. departments would expect that their fees could be reviewed by civil servants and others at some point in the future. There are no confidentiality agreements regarding fees for legal work done for the State. Legal privilege is one thing. Legal confidentiality over fees charged is a whole other thing. Transparency and accountability are overriding factors when it comes to assessing taxpayer value for money spent. Historically, the practice of disclosing the names of barristers, along with the fees paid to them by Government departments and public bodies, is a longstanding one, and the refusal to disclose similar information represents an unannounced change of practice. Citing the GDPR as the reason for this change of practice is unjustified. The GDPR does not preclude the information on any barrister’s fees being disclosed to the PAC. ....or Public Interest Please The routes available to the PAC Art.6 (1) (f) of GDPR provides an appropriate legal basis exists for the PAC to process the personal data concerned, i.e the names and fees charged by individual barristers. It states, “processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller or a third party except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject…” Here is a valid reason for the Dept. of Finance to furnish the details. PAC is not a “public authority” for the purposes of the GDPR or the DPA 2018, and so strict limitations on the use of the “legitimate interests” basis do not apply. (See Recital 47, GDPR) Under s.60 of the Data Protection Act 2018 restrictions are set on the obligations of data controllers and the rights of data subjects for “important objectives of general public interest”. The rights and obligations referred to are those under Arts 12-22 and Art 34 GDPR. S.60 (3) (c) DPA 2018 continues with restrictions where the personal data are kept “by the C&AG for the performance of his or her official functions”. Bearing in mind the role of the C&AG (The C&AG’s mission is to provide independent assurance that public funds and resources are used in accordance with the law, managed to good effect and properly accounted for and to contribute to improvement in public administration) it is proper that the information the PAC is seeking would be available without question to the C&AG from the Dept of Finance. It is certain that the C&AG would look favourably on any request from the PAC for the details of the legal charges they are seeking. There would be a clear understanding by the C&AG of the legitimacy of the request from the PAC. Unlike the action of the Dept of Finance, there would be no hiding behind the GDPR. If complications and confrontations continue in relation to requests by the PAC for information that contains personal data, there is a longer-term measure that could be utilised. This would involve amending the Data Sharing and Governance Act of 2019. A most appropriate amendment is one that includes the PAC within the definition of “public body”. Personal data from other public bodies could then be shared with the PAC. Appropriate restrictions could be placed on the categories of data to be shared. Data sharing within the amended act would be such that is necessary and proportionate to facilitate the proper functioning of the PAC in “ensuring public services are run efficiently and achieve value for money”. However, it never should have to come to this. It would not if departments such as the dept. of finance looked at the request in light of the public interest and in the light of the work the PAC does in the public interest. The PAC places transparency and accountability foremost in its quest to ensure public money spent achieves value for money. In a letter to the PAC, Deputy Commissioner Dara Walsh reiterated a view shared by many within the data protection community. This view is that the privacy interests of individual barristers do not trump or override the public interest in seeing how State money was being spent. “Barristers could have no expectation that the legal fees expended by the DPC as a public body would not be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny,” he concluded. Furnishing the details of fees to the PAC may also serve to show there is or there is no impropriety involved. Simply put: barrister A is not getting all the work. Somewhat ironically, Graham Doyle, deputy data protection commissioner, said the DPC was also recently before the PAC and asked about similar payments to third-party organisations and individual service providers, such as barristers. Not only did it provide the information on the companies, but also gave a detailed breakdown on individual barristers, and this was after the introduction of the GDPR (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-can-fully-disclose-apple-legal-bill-961631.html ) The commonsense answer suggested by the PAC, and supported by the DPC, is that people tendering for such work be made aware their payments will be publicly disclosed. P.S. Considering that a general election has just been announced, we will repost a previous blog on the GDPR and elections. It is important that candidates and voters are aware of rights and responsibilities, at a time where personal data are being quickly processed. Patrick Rowland, GDPRXpert.ie We are GDPR and Data Protection Consultants, with bases in Carlow/ Kilkenny and Mayo, offering a nationwide service. For more details visit www.gdprxpert.ie Edit ...
The DPC is not infallible.
21st November 2019Latest NewsThe DPC is not infallible, and so it is wise to remember that data controllers have legal rights. There is no doubt that much time has been spent in the media and on this forum in debating aspects of the Public Services Card. Data protection consultants GDPRXpert first reported on this in a blog way back in 15 Feb 2019. We rightly predicted the main conclusions resulting from the recent investigation by the office of the DPC into the legitimacy of the Public Services Card. Some of the concerns that the DPC was likely to focus on in the continuing contentious debate were highlighted. At that time many feared the PSC represented the introduction of a national identity card by stealth. GDPRXpert wrote at the time that “The government vehemently denied this, and different Ministers for Social Protection (Burton, Varadkar, and Doherty) regularly appeared in the media to explain and defend the purposes behind its introduction and certify its bona fides. It was just a convenient card with no other purposes than to cut down on benefit fraud and streamline operations. Everything now should work more cost-effectively and taxpayer money would be saved.” There is still little impediment standing in the way of its use as a de facto national identity card (See Adrian Weckler, “National ID Card Isn’t Dead” SINDO, Aug.18, 2019). There was a follow up on PSC and biometric data on 21 Feb. On 22 Aug. data protection consultants, GDPRXpert, discussed the DPC findings into the investigation of the PSC. A report was issued and recommendations were made to the Govt. Three central issues were to the fore in the report: The lack of lawful bases for processing personal data, apart from processing by the DEASP; Lack of transparency; ( in terms of what personal data it processes in the context of SAFE 2/PSC, for example, how that data is updated and shared with other public sector bodies for the purposes of decision-making) and Retention of data beyond what is necessary. (In particular, the retention of supporting documentation that was demanded in support of an application was excessive.) Data protection consultants GDPRXpert have the DEASP link to the report available now. Minister Regina Doherty: ‘We don’t agree with any of the eight findings and we have written to the commission to confirm that.’ Photograph: Dara Mac Donaill / The Irish Times In total, the DPC made 8 adverse findings in relation to the card’s introduction and operation. The government disagrees with each of these findings according to Minister Doherty. When publishing the findings of her report, Dixon said the Department had 21 days to provide an update on how it was implementing the finding that it was no longer lawful to require a PSC for services other than welfare. On Sept 5 the 21 days had expired. Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection Regina Doherty has said her department will not comply with any of the directions from the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) on its Public Services Card project. “We won’t be complying with any of the instructions with regard to the findings or the instructions in the letter,” the Minister told RTÉ Radio.(https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-will-not-comply-with-findings-on-public-services-card-1.4021397) The Government believes that it would be potentially unlawful to withdraw or modify the PSC. A statement confirmed that its intention is to continue to operate the PSC and the Safe 2 identity authentication process on which it is based. Despite the controversies, the PSC remains popular, with 96 percent of those surveyed saying they were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the process. (Irish Times, Sept 17, 2019) The reactions to the Government ‘daring’ to challenge the findings of the DPC have been surprising. Most data protection consultants would agree that the PSC has a lawful basis, but only in relation to its use for welfare related services through the DEASP. We have previously highlighted as unlawful any demand for the card in relation to other services unrelated to DEASP, such as passport, driving licence and more. Agree or disagree, the Government, just like a private citizen, has the right to appeal findings or a decision of the DPC. To deny or question this is to deny or question a basic tenet of the rule of law: access to justice and judicial review. GDPR will always be interpreted in light of the European Charter Of Fundamental Rights and in this instance Art. 47 is the most applicable. The independence of the DPC does not mean it “cannot be subject to control or monitoring mechanisms…or to judicial review” ( Recital 118, GDPR). Some of the groups foremost in the criticism are groups whose mission embodies supporting the rule of law. e.g. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, but the ICCL has been opposed to the PSC from the start. Its opposition to it has been based more on ideology than on law. “This card unfairly targets economically marginalised people who depend on the State for their welfare payments. It also works in a gendered way, being a requirement for mothers collecting child benefit. Though the DPC report did not focus on these issues, ICCL believes that the structural inequality inherent in the card may well render it illegal”. (See ICCL website) The DPC did not focus on ‘these issues’ for good reason: they are completely tangential. Opposition to the proposed body cameras, to be used by the Gardai has also been voiced by the council. Again, this seems more ideologically driven, than legally focused. In a recent journal.ie poll, over 90% of respondents had no privacy or data protection concerns about the use of body cameras by Gardai. Here come the legal bills! The DPC has never claimed to be infallible. Previous cases such as the Shatter case and the original Schrems case prove it is not. Indeed, neither has any court claimed to be infallible. A superior court overturning a lower court decision is not out of the ordinary. It is simplistic to say the lower court ‘got it wrong’ (but courts do ‘err in law’). In the majority of cases, there is at least some substantive legal validity in differing court opinions. Higher courts may overrule lower courts, but when appeals are all exhausted it has to come down to the decision of that final court. Ideally, the final decision is one that meets the highest threshold of justice and equity. Justice must be done and seen to be done. In the context of the Government appealing the findings of the DPC, there may have been a rush to comment. At this stage, the DPC has not yet made an Enforcement Order. The chief civil servant in charge of the controversial Public Services Card project has said that his department would not be challenging findings of illegality against the card unless it was “absolutely sure that a challenge was not only appropriate but necessary”. Appearing before the Dáil Public Accounts Committee – ostensibly to discuss his department’s most recently published accounts – secretary-general of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection John McKeon wouldn’t be drawn on whether or not that challenge would serve to “undermine” the office of the Data Protection Commissioner, which operates as an independent state regulator. Again, just because the DPC operates as an independent state regulator does not mean its decisions are above legal challenge by the Government. We can question the basis of any appeal if and when it arises, but we can not question the right to appeal itself. Graham Doyle, the DPC’s Head of Communications, told TheJournal.ie that the Commission has declined the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection’s (DEASP) request for a meeting and plans to proceed with enforcement action. “I can confirm that we have this evening responded to the Department and have declined their request for a meeting. (https://www.thejournal.ie/data-protection-commission-psc-4797429-Sep2019/ ) We await a decision on any enforcement action to be taken by the DPC. In an upcoming blog, we will look at the architecture of enforcement actions under the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, with an in-depth look at the appeal processes available. Patrick Rowland, GDPRXpert. We are GDPR and Data Protection Consultants, with bases in Carlow/ Kilkenny and Mayo, offering a nationwide service. For more details visit www.gdprxpert.ie...
GDPR Xpert.ie
CRO No. 634536
Web Design By KonnectMedia
We use cookies to track our website's performance in terms of traffic.OkNoHow We Use Cookies