Category: Countries

Record GDPR fine by the Hungarian Data Protection Authority for the unlawful use of AI

22. April 2022

The Hungarian Data Protection Authority (Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, NAIH) has recently published its annual report in which it presented a case where the Authority imposed the highest fine to date of ca. €670,000 (HUF 250 million).

This case involved the processing of personal data by a bank that acted as a data controller. The controller automatically analyzed recorded audio of costumer calls. It used the results of the analysis to determine which customers should be called back by analyzing the emotional state of the caller using an artificial intelligence-based speech signal processing software that automatically analyzed the call based on a list of keywords and the emotional state of the caller. The software then established a ranking of the calls serving as a recommendation as to which caller should be called back as a priority.

The bank justified the processing on the basis of its legitimate interests in retaining its customers and improving the efficiency of its internal operations.

According to the bank this procedure aimed at quality control, in particular at the prevention of customer complaints. However, the Authority held that the bank’s privacy notice referred to these processing activities in general terms only, and no material information was made available regarding the voice analysis itself. Furthermore, the privacy notice only indicated quality control and complaint prevention as purposes of the data processing.

In addition, the Authority highlighted that while the Bank had conducted a data protection impact assessment and found that the processing posed a high risk to data subjects due to its ability to profile and perform assessments, the data protection impact assessment did not provide substantive solutions to address these risks. The Authority also emphasized that the legal basis of legitimate interest cannot serve as a “last resort” when all other legal bases are inapplicable, and therefore data controllers cannot rely on this legal basis at any time and for any reason. Consequently, the Authority not only imposed a record fine, but also required the bank to stop analyzing emotions in the context of speech analysis.

 

Google launches “Reject All” button on cookie banners

After being hit with a €150 million fine by France’s data protection agency CNIL earlier in the year for making the process of rejecting cookies unnecessarily confusing and convoluted for users, Google has added a new “Reject All” button to the cookie consent banners that have become ubiquitous on websites in Europe. Users visiting Search and YouTube in Europe while signed out or in incognito mode will soon see an updated cookie dialogue with reject all and accept all buttons.

Previously, users only had two options: “I accept” and “personalize.” While this allowed users to accept all cookies with a single click, they had to navigate through various menus and options if they wanted to reject all cookies. “This update, which began rolling out earlier this month on YouTube, will provide you with equal “Reject All” and “Accept All” buttons on the first screen in your preferred language,” wrote Google product manager Sammit Adhya in a blog post.

According to Google they have kicked off the rollout of the new cookie banner in France and will be extending the change to all Google users in Europe, the U.K., and Switzerland soon.

Google’s plan to include a “Reject All” button on cookie banners after its existing policy violated EU law was also welcomed by Hamburg’s Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information Thomas Fuchs during a presentation of his 2021 activity report.

But the introduction of the “Reject All” button is likely to be only an interim solution because the US giant already presented far-reaching plans at the end of January to altogether remove Google cookies from third-party providers by 2023.

Instead of cookies, the internet giant wants to rely on in-house tracking technology for the Google Privacy Sandbox project.

UK’s new data protection clauses now in force

31. March 2022

After the British government announced reforms to UK’s data protection system last year, the Secretary of State submitted on February 2nd, 2022, a framework to the Parliament to regulate international data transfers and replace the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC). As no objections were raised and the Parliament approved the documents, they entered into force on March 21st, 2022.

The set of rules consists of the International Data Transfer Agreement (IDTA), the International Data Transfer Addendum to the European Commission’s SCC for international data transfers (Addendum) and a Transitional Provisions document. The transfer rules are issued under Section 119A of the Data Protection Act 2018 and take into account the binding judgement of the European Court of Justice in the case commonly referred to as “Schrems II”.

The documents serve as a new tool for compliance with Art. 46 UK GDPR for data transfers to third countries and broadly mirror the rules of the EU GDPR. The UK government also retained the ability to issue its own adequacy decisions regarding data transfers to other third countries and international organizations.

The transfer rules are of immediate benefit to organizations transferring personal data outside the UK. In addition, the transitional provisions allow organizations to rely on the EU SCC until March 21st, 2024, for contracts entered into up to and including September 21st, 2022. However, this is subject to the condition that the data processing activities remain unchanged and that the clauses ensure adequate safeguards.

European Commission and United States agree in principle on Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework

29. March 2022

On March 25th, 2022, the United States and the European Commission have committed to a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework that aims at taking the place of the previous Privacy Shield framework.

The White House stated that the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework “will foster trans-Atlantic data flows and address the concerns raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union when it struck down in 2020 the Commission’s adequacy decision underlying the EU-US Privacy Shield framework”.

According to the joint statement of the US and the European Commission, “under the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework, the United States is to put in place new safeguards to ensure that signals surveillance activities are necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of defined national security objectives, establish a two-level independent redress mechanism with binding authority to direct remedial measures, and enhance rigorous and layered oversight of signals intelligence activities to ensure compliance with limitations on surveillance activities”.

This new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework has been a strenuous work in the making and reflects more than a year of detailed negotiations between the US and EU led by Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders.

It is hoped that this new framework will provide a durable basis for the data flows between the EU and the US, and underscores the shared commitment to privacy, data protection, the rule of law, and the collective security.

Like the Privacy Shield before, this new framework will represent a self-certification with the US Department of Commerce. Therefore, it will be crucial for data exporters in the EU to ensure that their data importers are certified under the new framework.

The establishment of a new “Data Protection Review Court” will be the responsible department in cases of the new two-tier redress system that will allow EU citizens to raise complaints in cases of access of their data by US intelligence authorities, aiming at investigating and resolving the complaints.

The US’ commitments will be concluded by an Executive Order, which will form the basis of the adequacy decision by the European Commission to put the new framework in place. While this represents a quicker solution to reach the goal, it also means that Executive Orders can be easily repealed by the next government of the US. Therefore, it remains to be seen if this new framework, so far only agreed upon in principle, will bring the much hoped closure on the topic of trans-Atlantic data flows that is intended to bring.

ICO releases Guidance on Video Surveillance

7. March 2022

At the end of February 2022, The UK Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) published a guidance for organizations that capture CCTVs footage in order to provide advice for when they operate video surveillance systems that view or record individuals.

The recommendations aim to focus on best practices for data activities related to “emerging capabilities that can assist human decision making, such as the use of Facial Recognition Technology and machine learning algorithms.” As per the Guidance, surveillance systems specifically include traditional CCTV, Automatic Number Plate Recognition, Body Worn Video, Drones, Facial Recognition Technology, dashcams and smart doorbell cameras.

In their Guidance, the ICO offers checklists with points that controllers can use in order to monitor their use of video surveillance and keep track of their compliance with the applicable law. It further touches on the principles of data protection and how they specifically apply to video surveillance. In addition, it helps companies with the documentation of a Data Processing Impact Assessment.

The Guidance gives in depth advice on video surveillance at the workplace as well as if video feeds should also record audio.

Overall, the Guidance aims to sensibilize controllers regarding the various issues faced with when using video surveillance, and gives them in depth help on what to do to be compliant with the data protection regulations in the UK.

Apps are tracking personal data despite contrary information

15. February 2022

Tracking in apps enables the app providers to offer users personalized advertising. On the one hand, this causes higher financial revenues for app providers. On the other hand, it leads to approaches regarding data processing which are uncompliant with the GDPR.

For a year now data privacy labels are mandatory and designed to show personal data the app providers access (article in German) and provide to third parties. Although these labels on iPhones underline that data access does not take place, 80% of the analyzed applications that have these labels have access to data by tracking personal information. This is a conclusion of an analysis done by an IT specialist at the University of Oxford.

For example, the “RT News” app, which supposedly does not collect data, actually provides different sets of data to tracking services like Facebook, Google, ComScore and Taboola. However, data transfer activities have to be shown in the privacy labels of apps that may actually contain sensitive information of viewed content.

In particular, apps that access GPS location information are sold by data companies. This constitutes an abuse of data protection because personal data ishandled without being data protection law compliant and provided illegally to third parties.

In a published analysis in the Journal Internet Policy Review, tests of two million Android apps have shown that nearly 90 percent of Google’s Play Store apps share data with third parties directly after launching the app. However, Google indicates that these labels with false information about not tracking personal data come from the app provider. Google therefore evades responsibility for the implementation for these labels. Whereby, Apple asserts that controls of correctness are made.

Putting it into perspective, this issue raises the question whether these privacy labels make the use of apps safer in terms of data protection. One can argue that, if the app developers can simply give themselves these labels under Google, the Apple approach seems more legitimate. It remains to be seen if any actions will be taken in this regard.

CNIL judges use of Google Analytics illegal

14. February 2022

On 10th February 2022, the French Data Protection Authority Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) has pronounced the use of Google Analytics on European websites to not be in line with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and has ordered the website owner to comply with the requirements of the GDPR within a month’s time.

The CNIL judged this decision in regard to several complaints maybe by the NOYB association concerning the transfer to the USA of personal data collected during visits to websites using Google Analytics. All in all, NOYB filed 101 complaints against data controllers allegedly transferring personal data to the USA in all of the 27 EU Member States and the three further states of European Economic Area (EEA).

Only two weeks ago, the Austrian Data Protection Authority (ADPA) made a similar decision, stating that the use of Google Analytics was in violation of the GDPR.

Regarding the French decision, the CNIL concluded that transfers to the United States are currently not sufficiently regulated. In the absence of an adequacy decision concerning transfers to the USA, the transfer of data can only take place if appropriate guarantees are provided for this data flow. However, while Google has adopted additional measures to regulate data transfers in the context of the Google Analytics functionality, the CNIL deemed that those measures are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of the personal data for US intelligence services. This would result in “a risk for French website users who use this service and whose data is exported”.

The CNIL stated therefore that “the data of Internet users is thus transferred to the United States in violation of Articles 44 et seq. of the GDPR. The CNIL therefore ordered the website manager to bring this processing into compliance with the GDPR, if necessary by ceasing to use the Google Analytics functionality (under the current conditions) or by using a tool that does not involve a transfer outside the EU. The website operator in question has one month to comply.”

The CNIL has also given advice regarding website audience measurement and analysis services. For these purposes, the CNIL recommended that these tools should only be used to produce anonymous statistical data. This would allow for an exemption as the aggregated data would not be considered “personal” data and therefore not fall under the scope of the GDPR and the requirements for consent, if the data controller ensures that there are no illegal transfers.

(Update) Processing of COVID-19 immunization data of employees in non-EEA countries

21. January 2022

With COVID-19 vaccination campaigns well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information and, if so, how that information may be used.

COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.

Below, we discuss whether employers in different European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related data about their employees.

Brazil: According to the Labor Code (CLT), employers in Brazil have the right to require their employees to be vaccinated. The employer is responsible for the health and safety of its employees in the workplace and therefore has the right to take reasonable measures to ensure health and safety in the workplace. Since employers can require their employees to be vaccinated, they can also require proof of vaccination. As LGPD considers this information to be sensitive personal data, special care must be taken in processing it.

Hong-Kong: An employer may require its employees to disclose their immunization status. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (OSHO), employers are required to take all reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of all their employees in the workplace. The vaccination may be considered as part of  COVID-19 risk assessments as a possible additional measure to mitigate the risks associated with infection with the virus in the workplace. The requirement for vaccination must be lawful and reasonable. Employers may decide, following such a risk assessment, that a vaccinated workforce is necessary and appropriate to mitigate the risk. In this case, the employer must comply with the Personal Data Protection Regulation (PDPO). Among other things, the PDPO requires that the collection of data must be necessary for the purpose for which it is collected and must not be kept longer than is necessary for that purpose. According to the PDPO, before collecting data, the employer must inform the employee whether the collection is mandatory or voluntary for the employee and, if mandatory, what the consequences are for the employee if he or she does not provide the data.

Russia: Employers must verify which employees have been vaccinated and record this information if such vaccinations are required by law. If a vaccination is not required by law, the employer may require this information, but employees have the right not to provide it. If the information on vaccinations is provided on a voluntary basis, the employer may keep it in the employee’s file, provided that the employee consents in writing to the processing of the personal data. An employer may impose mandatory vaccination if an employee performs an activity involving a high risk of infection (e.g. employees in educational institutions, organizations working with infected patients, laboratories working with live cultures of pathogens of infectious diseases or with human blood and body fluids, etc.) and a corresponding vaccination is listed in the national calendar of protective vaccinations for epidemic indications. All these cases are listed in the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 15, 1999 No 825.

UK: An employer may inquire about an employee’s vaccination status or conduct tests on employees if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to comply with its legal obligation to ensure health and safety at work. The employer must be able to demonstrate that the processing of this information is necessary for compliance with its health and safety obligations under employment law, Art. 9 (2) (b) UK GDPR. He must also conduct a data protection impact assessment to evaluate the necessity of the data collection and balance that necessity against the employee’s right to privacy. A policy for the collection of such data and its retention is also required. The information must be retained only as long as it is needed. There must also be no risk of unlawful discrimination, e.g. the reason for refusing vaccination could be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.

In England, mandatory vaccination is in place for staff in care homes, and from April 2022, this will also apply to staff with patient contact in the National Health Service (NHS). Other parts of the UK have not yet introduced such rules.

USA: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a document proposing that an employer may implement a vaccination policy as a condition of physically returning to the workplace. Before implementing a vaccination requirement, an employer should consider whether there are any relevant state laws or regulations that might change anything about the requirements for such a provision. If an employer asks an unvaccinated employee questions about why he or she has not been vaccinated or does not want to be vaccinated, such questions may elicit information about a disability and therefore would fall under the standard for disability-related questions. Because immunization records are personally identifiable information about an employee, the information must be recorded, handled, and stored as confidential medical information. If an employer self-administers the vaccine to its employees or contracts with a third party to do so, it must demonstrate that the screening questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

On November 5th, 2021, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released a emergency temporary standard (ETS) urging affected employers to take affirmative action on COVID-19 safety, including adopting a policy requiring full COVID-19 vaccination of employees or giving employees the choice of either being vaccinated against COVID-19 or requiring COVID-19 testing and facial coverage. On November 12th, 2021, the court of appeals suspended enforcement of the ETS pending a decision on a permanent injunction. While this suspension is pending, OSHA cannot take any steps to implement or enforce the ETS.

In the US there are a number of different state and federal workplace safety, employment, and privacy laws that provide diverging requirements on processing COVID-19 related information.

(Update) Processing of COVID-19 immunization data of employees in EEA countries

With COVID-19 vaccination campaigns well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information and, if so, how that information may be used.

COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.

Below, we discuss whether employers in different European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related data about their employees.

Austria: The processing of health data in context of the COVID-19 pandemic can be based on Article 9 (2) (b) of the GDPR in conjunction with the relevant provisions on the duty of care (processing for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under labor and social law). Under Austrian labor law, every employer has a duty of care towards its employees, which also includes the exclusion of health hazards in the workplace. However, this only entitles the employer to ask the employee in general terms whether he or she has been examined, is healthy or has been vaccinated. Therefore, if the legislator provides for two other equivalent methods to prove a low epidemiological risk in addition to vaccination, the current view of the data protection authority is that specific questioning about vaccination status is not possible from a data protection perspective. An exception to this is only to be seen in the case of an explicit (voluntary) consent of the employee (Art. 9 (2) a) GDPR), but a voluntary consent is not to be assumed as a rule due to the dependency relationship of the employee.
As of November, employees will be obliged to prove whether they have been vaccinated, recovered from a COVID-19 infection or recently tested negative if they have physical contact with others in enclosed spaces, such as the office.

Austria was the first EU country to introduce mandatory Corona vaccination. From the beginning of February, Corona vaccination will be mandatory for all persons over 18 years of age, otherwise they will face fines of up to 3,600 euros from mid-March.

Belgium: In Belgium, there is no legal basis for the processing of vaccination information of employees by their employer. Article 9 (1) GDPR prohibits the processing of health data unless an explicit exception under Article 9 (2) GDPR applies. Such an exception may be a legal provision or the free and explicit consent of the data subject. Such a legal provision is missing and in the relationship between employee and employer, the employee’s consent is rarely free, as an employee may be under great pressure to give consent. The Belgian data protection authority explicitly denies the employer’s right to ask.

The Belgian government plans to make vaccination mandatory for health workers from April 2022.

Finland: The processing of an employee’s health data is only permitted if it is directly necessary for the employment relationship. The employer must carefully assess whether this necessity exists. It is not possible to deviate from this necessity by obtaining the employee’s consent. The employer may process an employee’s health data if this is necessary for the payment of sick pay or comparable health-related benefits or to establish a legitimate reason for the employee’s absence. The processing of health data is also permitted if an employee expressly requests that his or her ability to work be determined on the basis of health data. In addition, the employer is entitled to process an employee’s health data in situations expressly provided for by law. The employer may require occupational health care to provide statistical data on the immunization coverage of its employees.

France: In general employers may not require their employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated, unless specific circumstances determined by law apply.

In France, mandatory vaccination has been in effect since mid-September for healthcare workers, i.e., employees of hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, care services, and employees of emergency services and fire departments.

Since July 21st, 2021, a “health passport” is mandatory for recreational and cultural facilities with more than 50 visitors, such as theaters, cinemas, concerts, festivals, sports venues. The health passport is a digital or paper-based record of whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered within 11 days to 6 months, or tested negative within 48 hours. Due to the Health Crisis Management Law No 2021-1040 of August 5, 2021 there are several workplaces where the health pass is mandatory for employees since August 30th, 2021. These include bars, restaurants, seminars, public transport for long journeys (train, bus, plane The health passport is also mandatory for the staff and visitors of hospitals, homes for the elderly, retirement homes, but not for patients who have a medical emergency.Visitors and staff of department stores and shopping malls need to present a health pass in case the prefect of the department decided this necessary. In these cases, the employer is obliged to check if his employees meet their legal obligations. However, the employer should not copy and store the vaccination certificates, but only store the information whether an employee has been vaccinated. Employers who do not fall into these categories are not allowed to process their employees’ vaccination data. In these cases, only occupational health services may process this type of information and the employer may not obtain this information under any circumstances. At most, he may obtain a medical opinion on whether an employee is fit for work.

Germany: Processing of COVID-19-related information is generally only allowed for employers in certain industries. Certain employers named in the law, such as in §§ 23a, 23 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), employers in certain health care facilities (e.g. hospitals, doctors’ offices, rescue services) and § 36 (3) IfSG, such as day care centers, outpatient care services, schools, homeless shelters or correctional facilities, are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees.

Other employers are generally not permitted to inquire about the vaccination status of employees. But since §28b IfSG came into force on November 24, 2021, employees may only be granted access to company premises if they can prove that they have either been vaccinated, recently recovered or tested negative (so-called “3G status”). In this context, employers may require employees to provide proof of one of the three statuses but may not specifically ask about vaccination status. When it comes to processing and storing information obtained during access control, for data protection reasons, this information must be limited to the fact that employees have access to the premises (taking into account their documented status) and how long this access authorization has existed.

Under current law, while “vaccinated” status does not expire, the information may only be stored for 6 months. “Recently recovered” status is only valid for three months. After that, they must provide other proof that they meet one of the 3G criteria. A negative test is valid for either 24 or 48 hours, depending on the type of test.

Since November 2021, employers are required to verify whether an employee who has been sanctioned with a quarantine for COVID-19 infection was or could have been vaccinated prior to the infection. Under the fourth sentence of Section 56 (1) of the IfSG, an employee is not entitled to continued payment for the period of quarantine if the employee could have avoided the quarantine, e.g., by taking advantage of a vaccination program. The employer must pay the compensation on behalf of the competent authority. As part of this obligation to make an advance payment, the employer is also obliged to check whether the factual requirements for granting the benefits are met. The employer is therefore obliged to obtain information on the vaccination status of its employee before paying the compensation and to decide on this basis whether compensation can be considered in the individual case. The data protection law basis for this processing activity is Section 26 (3) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), which permits the processing of special categories of personal data – if this is necessary for the exercise of rights or the fulfillment of legal obligations under labor, social insurance and social protection law and there is no reason to assume that the interests of the data subjects worthy of protection in the exclusion of the processing outweigh this. The Data Protection Conference, an association of German data protection authorities, states that processing the vaccination status of employees on the basis of consent is only possible if the consent was given voluntarily and thus legally valid, Section 26 (3) sentence 2 and (2) BDSG. Due to the relationship of superiority and subordination existing between employer and employee, there are regularly doubts about the voluntariness and thus the legal validity of the employees’ consent.

If employers are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees, they should not copy the certificates, but only check to see if an employee has been vaccinated.

A mandatory vaccination for all german citizens is being discussed.

Greece: Corona vaccination became mandatory for nursing home staff in mid-August and for the healthcare sector on September 1. Since mid-September, all unvaccinated professionals have had to present a negative Corona rapid test twice a week – at their own expense – when they go to work.

Italy: Since October 15, Italy has become the first country in the EEA to require all workers to present a “green passport” at the workplace. This document records whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered, or tested. A general vaccination requirement has been in effect for health care workers since May, and employees in educational institutions have been required to present the green passport since September. In mid-October, mandatory vaccination was extended to employees of nursing homes.

Netherlands: Currently, there is no specific legislation that allows employers to process the vaccination data of their employees. Government guidelines for employers state that neither testing nor vaccination can be mandated for employees. Only occupational health services and company physicians are allowed to process vaccination data, for example, when employees are absent or reinstated. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has announced that he will allow the health sector to determine the vaccination status of its employees. He also wants to examine whether and how this can be done in other work situations. Currently, employers can only offer voluntary testing in the workplace, but are not allowed to document or enforce the results of such tests.

Spain: Employers are allowed to ask employees if they have been vaccinated, but only if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to fulfill its legal obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace. However, employees have the right to refuse to answer this question. Before entering the workplace, employees may be asked to provide a negative test or proof of vaccination if the occupational health and safety provider deems it necessary for the particular workplace.

ICO opens public consultation on its Regulatory Action Policy

6. January 2022

On December 20th, 2021, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) launched a public consultation on its regulatory approach.

The public consultation is aimed at three separate documents which are the basis of the ICO’s regulatory process. The documents are the Regulatory Action Policy (RAP), the Statutory Guidance on the ICO’s Regulatory Action, and Statutory Guidance on the ICO’s PECR Powers.

The RAP in particular identifies the ICO’s risk-based approach to regulatory action and explains the factors that play a role in the ICO’s consideration before taking regulatory action. It also sets forth how the ICO cooperates with other regulators and enforces the legislation for which it is responsible.

In conjunction, the three documents illustrate how the ICO aims to enforce information rights for data subjects in the UK.

The ICO indicated that the purpose for updating these documents was to provide further explanation about its regulatory powers. It aims to give the public a chance to their views on the approach the Commissioner should take with regards to the regulatory approach of his office.

The public consultation period will conclude on March 24, 2022.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 21 22 Next
1 2 3 22