Tag: Subject Access

The Farage Bank Row: The Power of the GDPR Subject Access Right? 

Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of NatWest, resigned on Wednesday morning after being accused of leaking information on Nigel Farage’s bank account to the BBC. Following a GDPR subject access request, the ex-UKIP leader received information from the bank that contradicted its justification for downgrading his account. Some say that this incident highlights the power of data protection rights, while others argue that Dame Alison was forced to resign as a result of Mr Farage’s continued influence over the Government.
The truth is probably a mix of the two.

Background

In a Twitter post on 29th June, Mr Farage said his bank (who we now know to be Coutts) had decided to stop doing business with him. He said that a letter from the bank contained no explanation and he had then been told over the phone that it was a “commercial decision”. Mr Farage claimed he was being targeted because the “corporate world” had not forgiven him for Brexit.

On 4th July, a BBC report claimed that the real reason the bank did not want his custom was because Mr Farage did not have enough money in his accounts. Coutts requires clients to have at least £1m in investments or borrowing or £3m in savings. The BBC reported that Mr Farage’s political opinions were not a factor in the decision, but this turned out not to be the case. 

 Mr Farage submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Coutts.
The response contained a 40-page document, published by the Daily Mail,  detailing all of the evidence Coutts accumulated about him to feed back to its Wealth Reputational Risk Committee. It revealed staff at the bank spent months compiling evidence on the “significant reputational risks of being associated with him”. It said continuing to have Mr Farage as a customer was not consistent with Coutts’ “position as an inclusive organisation” given his “publicly stated views”. Several examples were cited to flag concerns that he was “xenophobic and racist”, including his comparing Black Lives Matter protesters to the Taliban and his characterisation of the RNLI as a “taxi-service” for illegal immigrants. 

On 24th July, the BBC issued an apology to Mr Farage. It’s business editor Simon Jack also tweeted his apology, saying the reporting had been based on information from a “trusted and senior source” but “turned out to be incomplete and inaccurate”. This source later turned out to be Dame Alison. The Telegraph reported Dame Alison sat next to Simon Jack at charity dinner the day before the BBC story was published.

Dame Alison resigned after days of mounting pressure. The resignation was expected in the wake of briefings by Downing Street that she had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and Chancellor. The Government owns a 38.6% in NatWest, the owner of Coutts.

The Data Protection Angle

The Information Commissioner, John Edwards, has issued a statement emphasising the importance of banks’ duty of confidentiality and the need for Coutts to be able to response to Mr Farage’s complaint. Mr Edwards has also written to UK Finance to remind them of their responsibilities on information they hold.

It is arguable that Dame Alison, or more accurately Coutts as the Data Controller, breached the UK GDPR which requires, amongst other things, for personal data to be processed fairly, lawfully and in a transparent manner. That is assuming she disclosed personal data about a client to a journalist without consent or lawful authority. Dame Alison has said she did not reveal any personal financial information about Mr Farage, but admitted she had left Simon Jack “with the impression that the decision to close Mr Farage’s accounts was solely a commercial one.” She said she was wrong to respond to any question raised by the BBC about the case.

Has Dame Alison committed a criminal offence under S.170 of the DPA 2018; that of unlawfully disclosing personal data without the consent of the Data Controller? This is unlikely as, being the head of the bank, her views and that of the controller would in effect be the same. Were others in Coutts to argue otherwise, there are a number of “reasonable belief” defences available to her.  

Many think this row is more about politics than confidentiality or banking. Labour MP Darren Jones has queried why the Prime Minister is intervening on one man’s bank account. He posted a string of other examples where he says the government has not intervened going on to give his reasons for the Government’s stance.

The Power of Subject Access

Whatever you think of Nigel Farage’s political views, this incident shows that the subject access right is a powerful tool which can be used by individuals to discover the truth behind decisions which affect their lives and to challenge them.

Article 15 of the UK GDPR allows a data subject to receive all their personal data that is held by a Data Controller, subject to certain exemptions.
This does not just include official documentation but also emails, comments and any other recorded discussions, whether they are professionally expressed or not. Coutts have now apologised for some of the language used about Farage describing it as “deeply inappropriate”. A high profile individual’s use of GDPR rights also reminds the normal public of the same rights. The BBC reports that NatWest has now received hundreds of subject access requests from customers.

On the same day as Dame Alison announced her resignation, Sky News reported the story of a woman who alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted while being held in custody by Greater Manchester Police. Zayna Iman has obtained bodycam and CCTV footage which is supposed to cover the 40 hours from when she was arrested and covering her detention in police custody. From that period, there are three hours of missing footage which GMP have so far failed to supply without any explanation.  Miss Iman’s allegations are the subject of an ongoing investigation and referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. 

Back to the Nigel Farage case and there is an irony here; Mr Farage was able to challenge the bank’s decision by using a right which originates in EU law; the UK GDPR being our post Brexit version of the EU GDPR!

Our How to Handle a Subject Access Request workshop will help you navigate each stage and requirement of a Subject Access Request.

ICO Takes Action Against GDPR Subject Access Delays

On 28th September 2022, the Information Commissioner’s Office announced it is taking action against seven organisations for delays in dealing with Subject Access Requests(SARs). This includes government departments, local authorities and a communications company. 

The seven organisations were identified following a series of complaints in relation to multiple failures to respond to requests for copies of personal information collected and processed by these organisations, either within statutory timeframes or at all. 

An SAR must be responded to within one month, although this period can be extended by a further two months in the case of a manifestly unfounded or excessive request. The time starts from the date of receipt as per a ECJ court ruling and confirmed by the provisions of the forthcoming Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

But an ICO investigation found the seven organisations, from across the public and private sector, repeatedly failed to meet this legal deadline. This resulted in reprimands under the UK GDPR and, in some cases, Practice Recommendations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Information Commissioner John Edwards told the BBC naming and shaming organisations that fail to comply is a new proactive way for the ICO to work. 

“It’s going to become more common – it’s really important that people can have confidence in the administration of their information rights,” he said.

“That’s why we are publicly notifying these organisations that they have to bring themselves into compliance. 

“Being able to ask an organisation ‘what information do you hold on me’ and ‘how it is being used’ provides transparency and accountability.

“These are fundamental rights – these are not optional.” 

The seven organisations are:

Ministry of Defence (MoD)

The MoD has been issued with a reprimand following an identified SAR backlog dating back to March 2020. Despite setting up a recovery plan, this backlog has continued to grow, and currently stands at 9,000 SAR requests yet to be responded to. This has meant that, on average, people were typically waiting over 12 months for their information.

Home Office

A reprimand has been issued to the Home Office following investigations that showed between March 2021 and November 2021, they had a significant back log of SARs, amounting to just under 21,000 not being responded to during the statutory timeframe. Complaints to the ICO showed requesters suffered significant distress as a result. As of July 2022, there are just over 3,000 unanswered SARs outside of the legal time limit.

London Borough of Croydon

The investigation revealed that from April 2020 to April 2021, the London Borough of Croydon Council had responded to less than half of their SARs within the statutory timescales. This meant that 115 residents did not receive a response in accordance with the UKGDPR. Additionally, since June 2021, the ICO has issued 27 decisions notices under FOIA related to the Council’s failure to respond to information requests. They have been issued with a reprimand as well as a recommendation under our renewed approach to FOI regulation for failure to meet statutory response deadlines.

Kent Police

From October 2020 to February 2021, Kent Police received over 200 SARs, 60% were completed during the statutory deadline. However, some of the remaining SARs are reported to have taken over 18 months to issue a response. As of May 2022, over 200 SARs remain overdue. A reprimand has been issued.

London Borough of Hackney

For the period of April 2020 to February 2021, London Borough of Hackney did not respond to over 60% of the SARs submitted to them in the statutory timeframe. The oldest SAR was over 23 months. They have since been issued with a reprimand as well as a FOI practice recommendation.

London Borough of Lambeth

London Borough of Lambeth has only responded to 74% of the SARs it has received within the statutory timescales from 1 August 2020 to 11 August 2021. This equates to 268 SARs. The council continues to have a backlog of SAR cases and, based on the updated figures, does not appear to be improving. They have been issued with a reprimand.

Virgin Media

Over a 6 month period in 2021, Virgin Media received over 9500 SARs. 14% of these were not responded to during the statutory timeframe. However, their compliance in 2022 has seen improvements. A reprimand has been issued.

These organisations have between three and six months to make improvements or further enforcement action could be taken by the ICO. This action is a reminder that all Data Controllers must have policies and procedures in place to deal with SARs in a timely manner. 

Our workshop, How to Handle a Subject Access Request, equips delegates with the skills and knowledge to handle complex SARs. For experienced GDPR Practitioners wanting to take your skills to the next level we have  our Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice which starts on 25th October. 

The ICO’s New Subject Access Guidance

markus-winkler-afW1hht0NSs-unsplash

GDPR has introduced some new Data Subject rights including the right to erasure and data portability. The familiar right of Subject Access though still remains albeit with some additional obligations. Last week the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published its long awaited right of access detailed guidance following a consultation exercise in December. The guidance provides some much needed clarification on key subject access issues Data Controllers have been grappling with since May 2018. 

Reasonable Searches 

Sometimes Data Subjects make subject access requests with the aim of creating maximum work for the recipient. “I want to see all the documents you hold which have my name in them, including e mails” is a common one. How much effort has to be made when searching for such information? The new guidance states that Controllers should make reasonable efforts to find and retrieve the requested information. However, they are “not required to conduct searches that would be unreasonable or disproportionate to the importance of providing access to the information.” Factors to consider when determining whether searches may be unreasonable or disproportionate are:

  • the circumstances of the request; 
  • any difficulties involved in finding the information; and 
  • the fundamental nature of the right of access. 

Thus there is no obligation to make every possible effort to find all instances of personal data on the Data Controller’s systems. However, the burden of proof is on Controllers to be able to justify why a search is unreasonable or disproportionate. 

Stopping the Clock 

Data Controllers have one month to respond to a subject access request. Normally this period starts from the day the request is received. Previously the ICO guidance stated that the day after receipt counted as ‘day one’. They revised their position last year following a Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling. 

Data Controllers can ask the Data Subject to clarify their request, if it is unclear what they want, but this often leaves little time to meet the one month deadline. Having considered consultation responses, the ICO’s position now is that where a request requires clarification, in certain circumstances, the clock can be stopped whilst Controllers are waiting for clarification. 

Manifestly Unfounded and Excessive 

Article 12(5) of GDPR allows Data Controllers to refuse a Data Subject request or charge a fee where it is “manifestly unfounded or excessive.” The burden of proving this is on the Controllers whose staff often struggle with these concepts. The ICO has now provided additional guidance on these terms. 

A request may be manifestly unfounded if: 

  • The individual clearly has no intention to exercise their right of access; or 
  • The request is malicious in intent and is being used to harass an organisation with no real purpose other than to cause disruption. For example, the individual: 
  • explicitly states, in the request itself or in other communications, that they intend to cause disruption; 
  • makes unsubstantiated accusations against you or specific employees which are clearly prompted by malice; 
  • targets a particular employee against whom they have some personal grudge; or 
  • systematically sends different requests to the Controller as part of a campaign, e.g. once a week, with the intention of causing disruption. 

To determine whether a request is manifestly excessive Data Controllers need to consider whether it is clearly or obviously unreasonable. They should base this on whether the request is proportionate when balanced with the burden or costs involved in dealing with the request. This will mean taking into account all the circumstances of the request, including: 

  • the nature of the requested information; 
  • the context of the request, and the relationship between the Controller and the individual; 
  • whether a refusal to provide the information or even acknowledge if the Controller holds it may cause substantive damage to the individual; 
  • the Controller’s available resources; 
  • whether the request largely repeats previous requests and a reasonable interval hasn’t elapsed; or 
  • whether it overlaps with other requests (although if it relates to a completely separate set of information it is unlikely to be excessive).  

The Fee 

What can be included when charging a fee for manifestly unfounded or excessive requests? The new guidance says Data Controllers can take into account the administrative costs of: 

  • assessing whether or not they are processing the information; 
  • locating, retrieving and extracting the information; 
  • providing a copy of the information; and 
  • communicating the response to the individual 

A reasonable fee may include the costs of: 

  • photocopying, printing, postage and any other costs involved in transferring the information to the individual; 
  • equipment and supplies (e.g. discs, envelopes or USB devices) 

Staff time can also be included in the above based on the estimated time it will take staff to comply with the specific request, charged at a reasonable hourly rate. In the absence of relevant regulations under the Data Protection Act 2018, the ICO encourages Data Controllers to publish their criteria for charging a  fee and how they calculate it.  

Finally, the new ICO guidance emphasises the importance of preparation particularity the need to have: 

  • Training for employees to enable them to recognise subject access requests;  
  • Specific people appointed to deal with requests; 
  • Policies and procedures; and  
  • Technical systems in place to assist with the retrieval of requested information. 

Our Handling Subject Access Requests workshop is now available online. It covers all aspects of dealing with SARs including identifying and applying exemptions. Looking for a GDPR Qualification? Final places left on our online GDPR Practitioner Certificate

GDPR Subject Access Time Limits Reconsidered

Keeping paper records on the shelves.

Just like its predecessor (DPA 2018), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gives Data Subjects a right to make a Subject Access Request (SAR) to a Data Controller. This means that they can obtain:

  • Confirmation that their data is being processed
  • Access to their personal data
  • Other supplementary information

The supplementary information mentioned above is the same as under section 7 of the DPA (e.g. information about the source and recipients of the data) but now also includes, amongst other things, details of international transfers, other Data Subject rights, the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO and the envisaged retention period for the data.

Time Limit

The DPA allowed Data Controllers 40 calendar days to respond to a SAR. Under GDPR Article 12, the requested information must be provided “without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request”. This can be extended by a further two months where the request is complex or where there are numerous requests. If this is the case, the Data Subject must be contacted within one month of the receipt of the request with an explanation of why the extension is necessary.

When does the one month to respond start from?

Previously the ICO guidance stated that the day after receipt counted as ‘day one’. This has now been revised following a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling.
It says that Data Controllers should calculate the time limit from the day they receive the request (whether it is a working day or not) until the corresponding calendar date in the next month. For example, a Data Controller receives a request on 3rd September. The time limit will start from the same day. This gives the Data Controller until 3rd October to comply with the request.

If this is not possible because the following month is shorter (and there is no corresponding calendar date), the date for response is the last day of the following month. If the corresponding date falls on a weekend or a public holiday, Data Controllers have until the next working day to respond.

This means that the exact number of days Data Controllers have to comply with a request varies, depending on the month in which the request was made. For example, an organisation receives a request on 31st March. The time limit starts from the same day.
As there is no equivalent date in April, the Data Controller has until 30th April to comply with the request. If 30th April falls on a weekend, or is a public holiday, the Data Controller has until the end of the next working day to comply.

The ICO says that, for practical purposes, if a consistent number of days is required (e.g. for operational or system purposes), it may be helpful to adopt a 28-day period to ensure compliance is always within a calendar month.

Data Controllers need to consider the implications of the revised ICO guidance on their SAR procedures and standard response letters.

You may also be interested in Susan’s Wolf’s blog on the latest case on subject access for paper records.

 

More on these and other developments in our GDPR update workshop presented by Ibrahim Hasan. Looking for a GDPR qualification? Our practitioner certificate is the best option.

Act Now launches GDPR Policy Pack

ACT NOW NEWS

The first fine was issued recently under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by the Austrian data protection regulator. Whilst relatively modest at 4,800 Euros, it shows that regulators are ready and willing to exercise their GDPR enforcement powers.

Article 24 of GDPR emphasises the need for Data Controllers to demonstrate compliance through measures to “be reviewed and updated where necessary”. This includes the implementation of “appropriate data protection policies by the controller.” This can be daunting especially for those beginning their GDPR compliance journey.

Act Now has applied its information governance knowledge and experience to create a GDPR policy pack containing essential documentation templates to help you meet the requirements of GDPR as well as the Data Protection Act 2018. The pack includes, amongst other things, template privacy notices as well as procedures for data security and data breach reporting. Security is a very hot topic after the recent £500,000 fine levied on Equifax by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.

We have also included template letters to deal with Data Subjects’ rights requests, including subject access. The detailed contents are set out below:

  • User guide
  • Policies
    • Data Protection Policy
    • Special Category Data Processing (DPA 2018)
    • CCTV
    • Information Security
  • Procedures
    • Data breach reporting
    • Data Protection Impact Assessment template
    • Data Subject rights request templates
  • Privacy Notices
    • Business clients and contacts
    • Customers
    • Employees and volunteers
    • Public authority services users
    • Website users
    • Members
  • Records and Tracking logs
    • Information Asset Register
    • Record of Processing Activity (Article 30)
    • Record of Special Category Data processing
    • Data Subject Rights request tracker
    • Information security incident log
    • Personal data breach log
    • Data protection advice log

The documents are designed to be as simple as possible while meeting the statutory requirements placed on Data Controllers. They are available as an instant download (in Word Format). Sequential files and names make locating each document very easy.

Click here to read sample documents.

The policy pack gives a useful starting point for organisations of all sizes both in the public and private sector. For only £149 plus VAT (special introductory price) it will save you hours of drafting time. Click here to buy now or visit or our website to find out more.

Act Now provides a full GDPR Course programme including one day workshops, e learning, healthchecks and our GDPR Practitioner Certificate. 

“What’s that Skip? Someone’s got your Metadata? Crikey!” – Subject Access and Metadata in Australia

canstockphoto13858300

While strolling through the web one day,

Outside the very merry month of May,

Oh, look what I should find,

The web is wonderful and kind,

By giving me a case on metadata.

In recognition of National Poetry day last week, that was my shockingly brilliant (!!) effort at a short rhyme in aid of this blog post. I know, stick to the day job right? (And yes, I know that we are in October and not May).

As the rhyme suggests however, I was indeed browsing the web and I did indeed come across an interesting legal case looking at rights of access and metadata in telecoms/internet providers in Australia. Something of particular relevance at the moment in the light of the Australian Government announcing its new Data Retention Law.

In the news article and legal case an Australian citizen, Mr Grubb, exercised his rights under the Australian Privacy Act 1988 to ask for all information Telstra (a phone company) held about him. His request specifically asked for the meta-data associated against him:

“…I’d like to request all of the metadata information Telstra has stored about my mobile phone service (XXX XXX XXX).

The metadata would likely include which cell tower I’m connected to at any given time, the mobile phone number of a text I have received and the time it was received, who is calling and who I’ve called and so on. I assume estimated longitude and latitude positions would be stored too. This is the type of data I would like to receive.”

Although Telstra provided some data to Grubb, it refused to hand over internet protocol address information, edited versions of incoming call records and website URL information stating that retrieving the information would take disproportionate effort and therefore was unreasonable.

An appeal, dated May 2015, was brought to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner who found in favour of Data Subject in parts and the Data Controller in parts. But in very interesting parts.

The Commissioner supported Telstra in its exemption of some pieces of information to do with telephone numbers of 3rd parties, particularly where those numbers had registered with a Telephone Preference type service in Australia. Telstra argued that it had no effective method of determining those numbers and removing them from the list therefore the entire list of inbound numbers to the Data Subject’s telephone line would be exempt.

The Commissioner did however reject a number of claims made by Telstra about the difficulty in retrieving and linking data to a person’s identity. Telstra relied in part on this submission to argue that certain types of Grubb’s data was not “personal information” because it could not be linked to the Data Subject’s identity. However, the Commissioner in his decision drew attention to Telstra’s provision of data to law enforcement agencies to show that it has (and has used in the past) the ability to process and connect different types of metadata to individuals.

It’s also interesting that since the case was initiated Telstra’s approach to customer access to metadata has shifted significantly. Telstra customers will now be able to access the same metadata about them (save for shared information) that Telstra would provide to law enforcement agencies, on request without a warrant.

Now while Australia is a very long way away from Europe this case does pose some interesting questions. I ran a search online for cases where metadata was refused under a Subject Access Request (SAR) but could not find any in the public domain. As we all know there are a growing number of laws appearing that require telecoms companies to capture and store such metadata for government access but to date I’ve not seen a similar legal challenge whereby the data has been refused in a SAR.

For those that don’t have much experience with metadata the Oxford English dictionary defines metadata as “a set of data that describes and gives information about other data”. In this context, telecommunications data, is data that is associated with an account and its usage (e.g. masts used, websites visited, numbers called) which on their own do not automatically equate to personal data,  but do so when associated with one number form the metadata of that persons account. Therefore it is personal data as it can identify them and/or be associated with them.

The current subject access request code of practice from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office doesn’t specifically talk about metadata being or not being personal data or in scope for a SAR. Based on the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the fact that such metadata can and is requested by law enforcement agencies and is used to identify you; I would argue that this is Personal Data, as defined by the Act, and should be provided to a requestor under subject access.

How does this sit under the current proposed EU Data Protection Regulation text(s)? Well, you won’t find the term “metadata” in the Regulation text anywhere so there won’t be a crystal clear stance on it. Instead we will need to look at the definition of Personal Data as proposed.

In the European Council’s text Chapter 1, Article 4 (1) it defines Personal Data as;

 “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural personal (“data subject an identifiable 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, online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that person).”

So while the new proposed definition doesn’t specifically call out metadata it does seem to imply that it would be. For example, your mobile number and all data that can identify your location (phone mast data for example) would be considered Personal Data under that definition; which isn’t that far removed from DPA definition of Personal Data.

On that note, following a brief search online I have not been able to find any cases on SAR and telecoms in the public domain. I can find plenty of commentaries and a remotely similar financial services case. I would therefore be interested to see if anyone knows of one currently ongoing or that has been tested in the courts / tribunal so far to date?

Currently the UK Government is looking to revive the so-called “snooper’s charter” under the Draft Communications Data Bill. Therefore if government agencies are to spy / monitor / keep / ignore my personal data then I think that we should, at any point, see what that personal data is. I bet mine is really rather dull…but it’s my dull data dammit.

Scott Sammons an Information Risk and Security Officer in the Medico-Legal Sector and blogs under the name @privacyminion. Scott is on the Exam Board for the Act Now Data Protection Practitioner Certificate.

Read more about the EU Data Protection Regulation. Attend our full day workshop.

%d bloggers like this: