New Isle of Man GDPR Practitioner Certificate

Act Now is pleased to announce the launch of its new Isle of Man GDPR Practitioner Certificate course.

This new course is specially designed for Data Protection Officers and privacy practitioners, based in the Isle of Man and internationally, whose role involves advising on the GDPR as applies to the Isle of Man(the Applied GDPR) and associated privacy legislation. The content of the course has been developed after analysing all the knowledge, practical skills and competencies required for the DPO to successfully navigate the IoM data protection landscape. 

This course builds on Act Now’s very popular UK GDPR Practitioner certificate course which has been attended by hundreds of DPOs throughout the UK and abroad since its launch in 2017.  Our teaching style is based on practical and engaging workshops covering theory alongside hands-on application using case studies that equip delegates with knowledge and skills that can be used immediately. Personal tutor support throughout the course will ensure the best opportunity for success. Delegates will also receive a comprehensive set of course materials, including our very popular Isle of Man GDPR Handbook (RRP £54.95),as well as access to our online Resource Lab, which includes over 20 hours of videos on key aspects of the syllabus.

The Isle of Man GDPR Practitioner Certificate course takes place over four days (one day per week) and involves workshops, case studies and exercises. Delegates are then required to complete a practical project (in their own time) to achieve the certificate. Whether delivered online or in the classroom, delegates will receive all the fantastic features of the course specifically tailored for each learning environment. 

The Isle of Man GDPR Practitioner Certificate course builds on Act Now’s track record for delivering innovative and high quality practical training for information governance professionals:

The course director for the Isle of Man GDPR Practitioner Certificate course, Ibrahim Hasan, says:

“With its emphasis on practical skills we are confident that this course will become the qualification of choice for current and future IoM Data Protection Officers. We have looked at every aspect of this course to ensure it equips Isle of Man Data Protection Officers with the knowledge and skills they need to implement the Applied GDPR in a practical way.”

2022 IRMS Awards

Act Now Training is pleased to announce that it has been nominated for the 2022 Information and Records Management Society (IRMS) awards in all three categories. 

Each year the IRMS recognises excellence in the field of information management with their prestigious Industry Awards. These highly sought-after awards are presented at a glittering ceremony at the annual Conference following the Gala Dinner. In 2021 Act Now won the Supplier of the Year award. 

For 2022 Act Now has been nominated for the following awards. 

  • Team of the Year
  • Supplier of the Year
  • Innovation of the Year

All IRMS members are eligible to vote in the IRMS awards. The deadline is Monday 18th April 2022. Vote now for your favourite training company.

Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2022: What DPOs need to know

Cyber security breaches are on the rise. Virtually every day there is a news story about a high profile organisation being hacked and personal data being lost or stolen. Last week the BBC reported that thousands, if not millions, of people could have lost money in the second largest crypto hack in history. Ronin Network, a key platform powering the popular mobile game Axie Infinity, has had $615m (£467m) stolen. More recently UK retailer, The Works has been forced to shut shops temporarily and suspend new stock deliveries after a cyber-attack.

And it’s not just the private sector. In January we learnt that Gloucester City Council’s website was hacked affecting online revenue and benefits, planning and customer services. The work of Russian hackers(allegedly) could take up to six months to resolve and affected servers and systems may need to be rebuilt.

Data Protection Officers need to be aware of the latest incidents and advice when it comes to cyber security breaches. The recently published DCMS Cyber Security Breaches Survey is important reading for all DPOs. It explores the policies, processes, and approaches to cyber security for businesses, charities, and educational institutions. It also considers the different forms of cyber-attack these organisations face, as well as how they are impacted and their response.

Cyber Attacks

The survey results show that in the last 12 months, 39% of UK businesses identified a cyber-attack. Of these, the most common threat vector was phishing attempts (83%). Of the 39%, around one in five (21%) identified a more sophisticated attack type such as a denial of service, malware, or ransomware attack. Despite its low prevalence, organisations cited ransomware as a major threat, with 56% of businesses having a policy not to pay ransoms. Note recently the GDPR fine issued to a firm of solicitors who suffered such an attack. Interestingly they too chose not to pay the hackers. 

Frequency and Impact

Within the group of organisations reporting cyber-attacks, 31% of businesses and 26% of charities estimate they were attacked at least once a week. One in five businesses (20%) and charities (19%) say they experienced a negative outcome as a direct consequence of a cyber-attack, while one third of businesses (35%) and almost four in ten charities (38%) experienced at least one negative impact. It is interesting that the survey focussed on charities too. July 2021 saw the first GDPR fine to a charity. The transgender charity Mermaids was fined £25,000 after the ICO found that it had failed to implement an appropriate level of security to its internal email systems, which resulted in documents or emails containing personal data being searchable and viewable online by third parties through internet search engine results.

Cost of Attacks

The survey found the average estimated cost of all cyber attacks in the last 12 months was £4,200. Considering only medium and large businesses; the figure rises to £19,400. Of course such incidents also mean a loss of reputation and customer trust. In October 2020, the ICO fined British Airways £20million for a cyber security breach which saw the personal and financial details of more than 400,000 customers being accessed by hackers. British Airways also had to settle legal claims for compensation from affected customers. 

Cyber Hygiene

The government guidance ‘10 Steps to Cyber Security’ breaks down the task of protecting an organisation into 10 key components. The survey finds 49% of businesses and 40% of charities have acted in at least five of these 10 areas. In particular, access management surveyed most favourably, while supply chain security was the least favourable.

Board Engagement

Around four in five (82%) of boards or senior management within UK businesses rate cyber security as a ‘very high’ or ‘fairly high’ priority, an increase on 77% in 2021. 72% in charities rate cyber security as a ‘very high’ or ‘fairly high’ priority. Additionally, 50% of businesses and 42% of charities say they update the board on cyber security matters at least quarterly. Our new webinar “GDPR and the Charity Sector Webinar” is ideal for raising awareness amongst charity trustees.

Size Differential

Larger organisations are correlated throughout the survey with enhanced cyber security, likely as a consequence of increased funding and expertise. For large businesses’ cyber security; 80% update the board at least quarterly, 63% conducted a risk assessment, and 61% carried out staff training; compared with 50%, 33% and 17% respectively for all businesses. Our GDPR Essentials e learning course contains a specific module on keeping data safe which warns of the most common cyber hacking/phishing tactics.  

Risk Management

Just over half of businesses surveyed (54%) have acted in the past 12 months to identify cyber security risks, including a range of actions, where security monitoring tools (35%) were the most common. Qualitative interviews however found that limited board understanding meant the risk was often passed on to; outsourced cyber providers, insurance companies, or an internal cyber colleague.

Outsourcing and Supply Chain

Small, medium, and large businesses outsource their IT and cyber security to an external supplier 58%, 55%, and 60% of the time respectively, with organisations citing access to greater expertise, resources, and standard for cyber security. Consequently, only 13% of businesses assessed the risks posed by their immediate suppliers, with organisations saying that cyber security was not an important factor in the procurement process.

Incident Management

Incident management policy is limited with only 19% of businesses having a formal incident response plan, while 39% have assigned roles should an incident occur. In contrast, businesses show a clear reactive approach when breaches occur, with 84% of businesses saying they would inform the board, while 73% would make an assessment of the attack.

External engagement

Outside of working with external cyber security providers, organisations most keenly engage with insurers, where 43% of businesses have an insurance policy that cover cyber risks. On the other hand, only 6% of businesses have the Cyber Essentials certification and 1% have Cyber Essentials plus, which is largely due to relatively low awareness. The importance of this was highlighted in the recent GDPR fine issued to Tuckers solicitors.

The DCMS Cyber Security Breaches Survey is important reading for all Data Protection Officers and IT staff. Aligning with the National Cyber Strategy, it is used to inform government policy on cyber security. It should also be used to stay abreast of cyber security developments and formulate your own organisation’s cyber security strategy.  

Our Managing Personal Data Breaches workshop will examine the law and best practice in this area, drawing on real-life case studies, to identify how organisations can position themselves to deal appropriately with data security incidents and data breaches, in order to minimise the impact on customers and service users and mitigate reputational damage.

New US-EU Data Transfer Announcement: Time to celebrate?

On 25th March 2022, the European Commission and the United States announced that they have agreed in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The final agreement will replace the Privacy Shield Framework as a mechanism for lawfully transferring personal data from the EEA to the US in compliance with Article 44 of the GDPR. As for UK/US data transfers and compliance with the UK GDPR is concerned, it is expected that the UK Government will strike a similar deal once the EU/US one is finalised.

The need for a “Privacy Shield 2.0” arose two years ago, following the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in “Schrems II” which stated that organisations that transfer personal data to the US can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield Framework as a legal transfer tool. They must consider using the Article 49 derogations or standard contractual clauses (SCCs). If using the latter, whether for transfers to the USA or other countries, the ECJ placed the onus on the data exporters to make a complex assessment  about the recipient country’s data protection legislation (a Transfer Impact Assessment or TIA), and to put in place “additional measures” to those included in the SCCs. The problem with the US is that it has stringent surveillance laws which give law enforcement agencies access to personal data without adequate safeguards (according to the ECJ in Schrems).

Despite the Schrems II judgment, many organisations have continued to transfer personal data to the US hoping that regulators will wait for a new deal before enforcing Article 44.  Whilst the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seems to still have a “wait and see” approach, others have started to enforce. In February 2022, the French Data Protection Regulator, CNIL, ruled that use of Google Analytics was a breach of GDPR due to the data being transferred to the US without appropriate safeguards. This followed a similar decision by Austrian Data Protection Authority in January. 

Personal data transfers are also a live issue for most UK Data Controllers including public authorities. Whether using an online meeting app, cloud storage solution or a simple text messaging service, which one does not involve a transfer of personal data to the US? At present use of such services usually involves a complicated TRA and execution of standard contractual clauses. In the UK, a new international data transfer agreement (IDTA) came into force on 21st March 2022 but it still requires a TRA as well as supplementary measures where privacy risks are identified. 

Has the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework saved DPOs hours of work? But before you break open the bubbly, it is important to understand that this is just an agreement in principle. The parties will now need to draft legal documents to reflect the agreed principles. This will take at least a few months and will then have to be reviewed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adding more time. And of course there is the strong possibility of a legal challenge especially if the ECJ’s concerns about US surveillance laws are not addressed. Max Schrems said in a statement:

“We already had a purely political deal in 2015 that had no legal basis. From what you hear we could play the same game a third time now. The deal was apparently a symbol that von der Leyen wanted, but does not have support among experts in Brussels, as the US did not move. It is especially appalling that the US has allegedly used the war on Ukraine to push the EU on this economic matter.” 

“The final text will need more time, once this arrives we will analyze it in depth, together with our US legal experts. If it is not in line with EU law, we or another group will likely challenge it. In the end, the Court of Justice will decide a third time. We expect this to be back at the Court within months from a final decision.“

“It is regrettable that the EU and US have not used this situation to come to a ‘no spy’ agreement, with baseline guarantees among like-minded democracies. Customers and businesses face more years of legal uncertainty.”

What should organisations do in the meantime? Our view is, if you have any choice in the matter, stick to personal data transfers to adequate countries i.e. those which have been deemed adequate by the UK/EU under Article 45. This will save a lot of time and head scratching conducting TRAs and executing SCCs. Where a US/non-adequate country transfer is unavoidable, a suitable transfer mechanisms has to be used as per Article 45. Of course for genuine one-off transfers the provisions of Article 49 derogations are worth considering. 

Only 2 places left on our Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice course starting in April. We have also just announced three new GDPR workshops for experienced practitioners.

Three New GDPR Workshops from Act Now Training

Act Now Training is pleased to announce three new additions to our GDPR workshop series. 

Data ethics is increasingly relevant to the role of information professionals. Just because the processing of personal data is lawful does not make it fair or ‘ethical’. And indeed, where something is fair it does not always mean it is lawful. Whilst the UK GDPR gives us some structure for working out what is a fair and proportionate use of personal data (and thus ethical), there can be a wide range of issues outside of the law to consider.  

Our Data Ethics workshop will explore what the term ‘Data Ethics’ actually means, the role it plays in the use of personal data (and indeed other data) and what practical steps information professionals can take to embed and promote data ethics within their organisations. From how to consider data ethics in DPIAs and sharing requests, through to embedding a practical data ethics framework in your organisation, we will pose questions, share experiences and best practice and where to find further guidance and support. 

A subject which has many ethical considerations is the use of Artificial Intelligence (also known as AI) and Machine Learning. AI is not coming; it is here. Whether ordering a taxi or submitting your tax return, AI is operating in the background. AI and Machine Learning have the capacity to improve our lives but, like all technologies, they have the potential to ruin lives too.  

Our new workshop, How to implement Good Information Governance into Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning Projects, will explore exactly what ‘AI’ and ‘Machine Learning’ are and how they are starting to appear in the working environment. We will also explore the common challenges that these present focussing on GDPR as well as other information governance and records management issues.  Delegates will leave the workshop with practical ideas for how to approach Machine Learning and AI as well as awareness of key resources, current best practice and how they can keep up to date about a fast-developing area of technology. Think that AI is something for future generations to deal with? This workshop will make you think again!

The concepts of controller, joint controller and processor play a crucial role in the application of GDPR. They determine who is responsible for compliance with different data protection rules and how data subjects can exercise their rights in practice.  The precise meaning of these concepts and the criterion for their correct interpretation is the subject of much confusion. Incorrect interpretation can lead to the wrong allocation of data protection responsibilities leading to disputes when things go wrong. 

Our new workshop, Data Controller, Processor or Joint Controller: What am I?, will help both controllers and processors to understand their responsibilities and liabilities under GDPR and how to structure their relationships. This interactive workshop will explain the key differences between data controllers, joint controllers and data processors and what the roles and responsibilities are for each. By the end of this workshop, delegates will gain the confidence to decide on what an organisation’s role is under GDPR and how to manage the different relationships.

At Act Now we are always keen to hear from information governance professionals. If you have ideas for new workshops, or are interested in running one, please get in touch.

Google Analytics and GDPR Compliance: What next?

Google Analytics is a popular tool used by website owners across the world to observe and measure user engagement. In February 2022, the French Data Protection Regulator, CNIL, ruled that use of Google Analytics was a breach of GDPR. This followed a similar decision by Austrian Data Protection Authority in January. 

Is a website owner processing personal data by making use of Google Analytics? On the face of it, the answer should be no. Google Analytics only collects information about website visitors, such as which pages they access and where they link from. The website owners do not see any personal data about visitors. However, Google does assign a unique user identification number to each visitor which it can use to potentially identify visitors by combining it with other internal resources (just think of the vast amount of information which is collected by Google’s other services). 

The fact that the above mentioned French and Austrian decisions ruled that analytics information is personal data under GDPR does not in its itself make the use of Google Analytics unlawful. Of course website owners need to find a GDPR Article 6 condition for processing (Lawfulness) but this is not an insurmountable hurdle. Legitimate interests is a possibility although the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) holds the view that use of analytics services is not “strictly necessary” in terms of the PECR cookie rules and its own cookie banner, adopts the express consent approach.  

A bigger obstacle to the use of Google Analytics in Europe is the fact that website users’ personal data is being passed back to Google’s US servers. In GDPR terms that is a “restricted transfer” (aka international transfer). Following the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in “Schrems II”, such transfers have been problematic to say the least.  In Schrems, the ECJ concluded thatorganisations that transfer personal data to the USA can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield Framework. They must consider using the Article 49 derogations or standard contractual clauses(SCCs). If using the latter, whether for transfers to the USA or other countries, the ECJ placed the onus on the data exporters to make a complex assessment about the recipient country’s data protection legislation, and to put in place “additional measures” to those included in the SCCs. The problem with the US is that it has stringent surveillance laws which give law enforcement agencies access to personal data without adequate safeguards (according to the ECJ in Schrems).

In France, the CNIL has ordered the website which was the subject of its ruling about Google Analytics to comply with the GDPR and “if necessary, to stop using this service under the current conditions”, giving it a deadline of one month to comply. The press release, announcing the decision, stated:

“Although Google has adopted additional measures to regulate data transfers in the context of the Google Analytics functionality, these are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of this data for U.S. intelligence services.”

“There is therefore a risk for French website users who use this service and whose data is exported.”

The CNIL decision does leave open the door to continued use of Google Analytics but only with substantial changes that would ensure only “anonymous statistical data” gets transferred. It also suggests use of alternative toosl which do not involve a transfer outside the EU. Of course the problem will be solved if there is a new agreement between the EU and U.S. to replace the Privacy Shield. Negotiations are ongoing.

In the meantime, what can UK based website owners do. Should they stop using Google Analytics? Some may decide to adopt a “wait and see” approach. The ICO has not really shown any appetite to enforce the Schrems decision concentrating instead on alternative transfer tools including International Data Transfer agreement which comes into force tomorrow. Perhaps a better way is to assess which services, not just analytics services, involve transfers to the US and switch to EU based services instead.  

This and other GDPR developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming GDPR Update workshop on Wednesday. We also have a few places left on our Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice course starting in April.

advanced_cert
https://www.actnow.org.uk/advancedcert

Law Firm Fined For GDPR Breach: What Went Wrong? 

On 10th March the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced that it had fined Tuckers Solicitors LLP £98,000 for a breach of GDPR.

The fine follows a ransomware attack on the firm’s IT systems in August 2020. The attacker had encrypted 972,191 files, of which 24,712 related to court bundles.  60 of those were exfiltrated by the attacker and released on the dark web.  Some of the files included Special Category Data. Clearly this was a personal data breach, not just for the fact that data was released on the dark web, but because of the unavailability of personal data (though encryption by the attacker) which is also cover by the definition in Article 4 GDPR. Tuckers reported the breach to the ICO as well as affected individuals through various means including social media. 

The ICO found that between 25th May 2018 (the date the GDPR came into force) and 25th August 2020 (the date on which the Tuckers reported the personal data breach), Tuckers had contravened Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR (the sixth Data Protection Principle, Security) as it failed to process personal data in a manner that ensured appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures. The ICO found its starting point for calculating the breach to be 3.25 per cent of Tuckers’ turnover for 30 June 2020. It could have been worse; the maximum for a breach of the Data Protection Principles is 4% of gross annual turnover.

In reaching its conclusions, the Commissioner gave consideration to Article 32 GDPR, which requires a Data Controller, when implementing appropriate security measures, to consider:

 “…the state of the art, the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons”.

What does “state of the art” mean? In this case the ICO considered, in the context of “state of the art”, relevant industry standards of good practice including the ISO27000 series, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the various guidance from the ICO itself, the National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC”), the Solicitors Regulatory
Authority, Lexcel and NCSC Cyber Essentials.

The ICO concluded that there are a number of areas in which Tuckers had failed to comply with, and to demonstrate that it complied, with the Security Principle. Their technical and organisational measures were, over the relevant period, inadequate in the following respects:

Lack of Multi-Factor Authentication (“MFA”)

MFA is an authentication method that requires the user to provide two or more verification factors to gain access to an online resource. Rather than just asking for a username and password, MFA requires one or more additional verification factors, which decreases the likelihood of a successful cyber-attack e.g. a code from a fob or text message. Tuckers had not used MFA on its remote access solution despite its own GDPR policy requiring it to be used where available. 

Patch Management 

Tuckers told the ICO that part of the reason for the attack was the late application of a software patch to fix a vulnerability. In January 2020 this patch was rated as “critical” by the NCSC and others. However Tuckers only installed it 4 months later. 

Failure to Encrypt Personal data

The personal data stored on the archive server, that was subject to this attack, had not been encrypted. The ICO accepted that encryption may not have prevented the ransomware attack. However, it would have mitigated some of the risks the attack posed to the affected data subjects especially given the sensitive nature of the data.

Action Points 

Ransomware is on the rise. Organisations need to strengthen their defences and have plans in place; not just to prevent a cyber-attack but what to do when it does takes place:

  1. Conduct a cyber security risk assessment and consider an external accreditation through Cyber Essentials. The ICO noted that in October 2019, Tuckers was assessed against the Cyber Essentials criteria and found to have failed to meet crucial aspects. The fact that some 10 months later it had still not resolved this issue was, in the Commissioner’s view, sufficient to constitute a negligent approach to data security obligations.
  2. Making sure everyone in your organisation knows the risks of malware/ransomware and follows good security practice. Our GDPR Essentials e learning solution contains a module on keeping data safe.
  3. Have plans in place for a cyber security breach. See our Managing Personal Data Breaches workshop. 

More useful advice in the ICO’s guidance note on ransomeware and DP compliance.

This and other GDPR developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming GDPR Update workshop. We also have a few places left on our Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice course starting in April.

advanced_cert

Leading Surveillance Law Expert Joins the Act Now Team

Act Now Training welcomes solicitor and surveillance law expert, Naomi Mathews, to its team of associates. Naomi is a Senior Solicitor and a co-ordinating officer for RIPA at a large local authority in the Midlands. She is also the authority’s Data Protection Officer and Senior Responsible Officer for CCTV.

Naomi has extensive experience in all areas of information compliance and has helped prepare for  RIPA inspections both for the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO). She has worked as a defence solicitor in private practice and as a prosecutor for the local authority in a range of regulatory matters including Trading Standards, Health and Safety and Environmental prosecutions. Naomi has higher rights of audience to present cases in the Crown Court.

Naomi has many years of practical knowledge of RIPA and how to prepare for a successful prosecution/inspection. Her training has been commended by RIPA inspectors and she has also trained nationally. Naomi’s advice has helped Authorising Officers, Senior Responsible Officers and applicants understand the law and practicalities of covert surveillance. 

Like our other associates, Susan Wolf and Kate Grimley Evans, Naomi is a fee paid member of the Upper Tribunal assigned to the Administrative Appeals Chamber (Information Rights Jurisdiction and First Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights Jurisdiction).

Ibrahim Hasan, director of Act Now Training, said:

“ I am pleased that Naomi has joined our team. We are impressed with her experience of RIPA and her practical approach to training which focuses on real life scenarios as opposed to just the law and guidance.”

Naomi will be delivering our full range of RIPA workshops as well developing new ones. She is also presenting a series of one hour webinars on RIPA and Social Media. If you would like Naomi to deliver customised in house training for your organisation, please get in touch for a quote. 

The New Isle of Man GDPR Handbook

Act Now Training is pleased to announce the launch of the new Isle of Man GDPR Handbook. The handbook is designed for data protection practitioners and legal advisers who require a reference guide to the Isle of Man Data Protection regime. It has been published following the success of the Act Now UK GDPR and EU GDPR handbooks.

The IoM GDPR handbook sets out the full text of the EU GDPR as it applies to the Isle of the Man (Applied GDPR) together with cross referenced recitals. Isle of Man specific amendments, insertions and deletions are clearly indicated to allow users to easily identify what has been changed from the original EU text. Relevant provisions of the Implementing Regulations have been included where they contribute to the further understanding of the Applied GDPR. Guidance from the Isle of Man Information Commissioner and the European Data Protection Board is also signposted to assist users when interpreting the legislation. 

Ibrahim Hasan, the editor of the IoM GDPR Handbook, said:

“I am really pleased with the publication of the Isle of Man GDPR Handbook. We wanted to fulfil the need of data protection practitioners in the Ise of Man to have access to a clear and easy to follow publication to help them navigate their way around this complex legislation.”

Isle of Man delegates who book our new IoM GDPR Practitioner Certificate course will receive a complimentary copy of this handbook as part of their course materials. 

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT

The RRP of the Isle of Man GDPR handbook is £54.99 (plus postage and packing). There is an early bird discount of 15% off the RRP until 3pm on 17th March 2022. Please quote the discount code “IoM15” when placing your order here. 

The Revised GDPR Immigration Exemption  

nithin-shetty-UkcqOttz-F4-unsplash

The Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022 came into force on 26th January 2022. It amends Schedule 2 of the DPA 2018 to include a revised “immigration exemption”. The exemption disapplies many data subject rights in the GDPR (now UK GDPR), such as subject access and the right to erasure, where personal data is processed for “the maintenance of effective immigration control” or “the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control”. 

The amendment follows the May 2021 Court of Appeal judgement, in  The Open Rights Group & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  (2021) EWCA Civ 800, where it was held that the immigration exemption, as it was originally drafted in the DPA 2018, was unlawful and incompatible with the EU GDPR (and now consequently the UK GDPR). 

Article 23 of the EU GDPR allows Member States to create exemptions to restrict data subjects’ rights in certain circumstances (e.g. for the purposes of crime prevention).
Such exemptions must respect the “essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms” and be “necessary and proportionate… in a democratic society”.  Article 23(2) also includes a list of “specific provisions” that any legislative measure creating a restriction to data subjects’ rights must contain e.g. the purpose of the processing, the relevant categories of personal data, the scope of the restriction introduced and details of the accompanying safeguards. The Court of Appeal found that the immigration exemption, as originally drafted, did not contain any of these provisions; nor were they covered in any separate legally binding legislation.   

The 2022 regulations amend the immigration exemption to make clear that it may only be relied on by the Secretary of State and only if the Secretary of State has in place an immigration exemption policy document. This is a document which explains the Secretary of State’s polices and processes for determining whether, and the extent to which, the exemption applies in any particular case, and for ensuring that any personal data covered by the exemption is not abused or accessed or transferred in a manner contrary to the UK GDPR. Additional safeguards are also added to the exemption to require the Secretary of State:  

(a) to decide whether the immigration exemption applies on a case by case basis, and to have regard to the immigration exemption policy document when making such decisions;

(b) to keep a record of any decision that the immigration exemption applies and the reasons for that decision;

(c) to inform a data subject of any such decision, unless doing so may be prejudicial to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 4(1)(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 to the 2018 Act. 

Following the Court of Appeal judgement, questions now arise (though not specifically addressed by the court) about the legality of other GDPR exemptions set out in the DPA 2018. Many of them also appear not to have the “specific provisions” required under Article 23(2).  

Act Now’s UK GDPR Handbook has been updated to include the revised wording for the immigration exemption, as well as new guidance from the ICO and European Data Protection Board. This is now available to purchase although delegates on our forthcoming GDPR Practitioner Certificate course and Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice course will receive a complimentary copy. 

advanced_cert