There was once a time when information coverage was once just about a byword for one thing uninteresting, dull and technical.
Now not. The previous few years have observed information coverage problems hardly out of the headlines, from primary safety breaches at family title firms to fresh controversies over GP information and vaccine passports.
There have additionally been two primary upheavals within the legislation, with the brand new Basic Information Coverage Law taking impact in 2018, adopted via the post-Brexit adjustments as the United Kingdom disentangles itself from EU rules.
However as information coverage has grown in significance and attracted wider hobby, there was expanding frustration on the method information coverage legislation is enforced and controlled. Particularly, the Knowledge Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has change into the objective of grievance for failing to take extra tough motion to put into effect the legislation. This grievance reached the mainstream remaining week when the Telegraph revealed an opinion piece entitled ‘The Knowledge Commissioner’s Place of business is letting us down’ (£), arguing that the Commissioner had spent an excessive amount of time chasing headlines and no longer sufficient imposing the law. This was once adopted briefly via a long rebuttal at the ICO’s website online.
What must we make of all this? The context this is necessary, so in all probability we must no longer be shocked via the timing of those public criticisms. Elizabeth Denham’s time period as Commissioner runs out in October, when a brand new Commissioner will soak up the function. We don’t but know the identification of her substitute, even supposing the sturdy favorite is John Edwards, recently New Zealand’s Privateness Commissioner. Probably the most public criticisms seem to be a not-so-subtle strive at influencing the brand new Commissioner to take law in a brand new and other route.
Most of the criticisms raised via the Telegraph and somewhere else are smartly based. Elizabeth Denham has had the next public profile than any of her predecessors, ceaselessly showing in public to talk about information coverage problems and making sure that the ICO has contributed to debates round synthetic intelligence and new applied sciences. However relating to law, the ICO has used its vital powers sparingly since 2018 and has most well-liked to supply recommendation and steerage somewhat than impose heavy fines or factor formal enforcement notices. While companies definitely welcomed the Commissioner’s softly-softly method to start with, many are actually wondering whether or not it is just too lenient. My shoppers who paintings onerous to get it proper inform me that they’re pissed off to peer competition gaining a bonus via ignoring the principles with obvious impunity.
Within the EU, regulators have taken an altogether extra tough method. This week it was once introduced that Amazon were fined a report €746 million via the Luxembourg information coverage authority, whilst somewhere else regulators have already racked up masses of smaller fines. In fact, efficient law must no longer be all about fines and we must no longer underestimate the significance of the ICO’s advisory function. However demonstrating that non-compliance has penalties is among the absolute best techniques to influence reluctant organisations that information coverage issues.
n the opposite hand, there are obviously some inside the present UK govt who don’t want to see the Commissioner taking a more potent method and would like information coverage to go back to its former low profile. There were repeated statements from inside the United Kingdom govt about the fee and perceived burden of knowledge coverage compliance, in addition to the possible to milk the facility of knowledge to pressure financial enlargement. The Knowledge Commissioner is unbiased of presidency however, in a post-Brexit international, the United Kingdom govt now has a a long way higher function relating to surroundings the route of knowledge coverage coverage. Those voices are going to be tricky to forget about.
It seems like we’re at a crossroads, with the longer term route of knowledge coverage law unclear. Will we wish to see the regulator as a in large part advisory frame, providing recommendation and steerage however leaving the tough problems with enforcement to the courts? Or would we favor an energetic and interventionist regulator that isn’t afraid to problem the organisations it regulates (together with, after all, the federal government itself)?
Whoever takes at the function as the following Commissioner goes to want a thick pores and skin, skilled international relations talents and the steadiness and poise of an Olympic gymnast. Excellent success!