|
14 November 2007
ICO asks UK to criminalise severe data breaches

Increasingly powerful: information commissioner Richard Thomas
asks the government for strengthened laws on personal data
The UK information commissioner’s office (ICO) has asked
the government to make serious breaches of the Data Protection Act
a criminal offence, rather than attracting fines as at present.
Under the ICO’s proposals to the Ministry of Justice, the
government would introduce a criminal offence for knowingly and
recklessly flouting the Data Protection Act 1998. David Smith, assistant
commissioner, told the House of Lords’ constitution committee
on November 14 that if patient records were left on an unencrypted
laptop on the back seat of a car, and these were stolen, “that
blatant risk should attract a criminal offence”.
Smith added that it is “an anomaly” that only financial
services organisations can suffer serious consequences for such
breaches, such as the £980 000 fine levied on Nationwide building
society earlier this year by the Financial Service Authority.
The ICO is also asking for the right to inspect personal data processing
operations, which it can currently carry out only with consent,
although Smith said “we would not inspect thousands and thousands
of organisations” if it wins such a right.
The government is already introducing criminal charges for those
who trade personal data, in clause 75 of the criminal justice and
immigration bill now before parliament. Richard Thomas, the information
commissioner, told the committee: “We are delighted they have
accepted our recommendation to increase the penalty.”
In a 2006 report, What Price Privacy?, the ICO highlighted
how financial institutions, lawyers and journalists illegally obtain
personal data through private investigators and published a tariff
of charges for different kinds of information (article).
Thomas also told the committee of his concerns on aspects of the
government’s identity card scheme. “We continue to question
why so much transaction data will be collected,” he said,
referring to the plan to retain in a central database an ‘audit
trail’ of every time individuals use cards or records are
accessed, adding that he was meeting with the Identity and Passport
Service later on 14 November to discuss secondary legislation to
the Identity Cards Act.
Thomas also questioned the government’s planned database
of all children, rather than just those known to be at risk, and
also the existing criminal record checks on those seeking to work
with children, which reveal any offence, however trivial and long-ago.
But he added that parts of government are increasingly aware of
threats to personal data, with the Department of Health supporting
the ICO proposal for increased penalties, as this would help secure
its centrally-held health records for patients in England under
the Connection for Health scheme.
Last month Jack Straw, the justice minister, asked Thomas to review
public and private-sector data sharing with Mark Walport, director
of the Wellcome Trust (article).
Thomas told the committee that they will report in mid-2008, with
a consultation paper to be released shortly.
“We both agree, information sharing is no panacea,”
he said. Although it has useful and reasonable applications, information
sharing should not be carried out just for its own sake: “We
will be trying to identify where the boundary lines should be drawn,”
he said.
When asked whether the public was concerned about information
sharing, Thomas pointed to research released on 14 November showing
that 94% of British adults surveyed are concerned that organisations
are selling their personal data without permission, and that nine
in 10 believe organisations are failing to keep such data secure.
The research, which was prepared by SMSR and surveyed 1000 people,
showed a growing awareness of data protection, with 90% aware of
the right to see personal data, compared with 74% three years ago.
Although the ICO is also requesting increased powers to be consulted
over new data-sharing schemes, Thomas said the ICO had not always
been vigilant, when questioned about the UK police DNA database.
As the result of a 2003 law, this includes the genetic code of
anyone arrested, regardless of whether they are found guilty. Thomas,
who was in the job when the law went through parliament, said the
ICO questioned, and continues to question, the need for innocent
citizens’ DNA to be retained, but added: “Perhaps we
missed a trick in not shouting loud enough.”
FCO breached data privacy of
50,000 visa applicants (13 November 2007)
Comment by Richard Thomas:
Have respect for info-rights (August 2007)
News
index
|