Tag: ICO

British Airways: Fine reduced

20. October 2020

In 2018 British Airways (BA) had to announce that they suffered a massive data breach. The data breach referred to the online booking tool. Login data and credit card data as well as travel data and address data were accessed illegaly. Affected were more than 400.000 customers.

Back in 2019 the UK’s Information Commissioners Office (ICO) evaluated the breach and stated that weak security precautions enabled the hakers to access the data. Thus, the ICO fined BA as a consequence of the breach a record fine of £183.000.000 (€ 205.000.000).

BA appealed against the fine and now – in 2020 – the ICO announced a reduced fine.

On October 16th, 2020, the ICO announced the final sanction for BA. The initial fine of £183.000.000 (€ 205.000.000) has been reduced to a total fine of £20.000.000 (€ 22.000.000). Reason for the reduction is inter alia the current COVID-19 situation and it’s consequences for the Aviation industry.

The notification from the authority states in this context:

As part of the regulatory process the ICO considered both representations from BA and the economic impact of COVID-19 on their business before setting a final penalty.

ICO passed Children’s Code

8. September 2020

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) passed the Age Appropriate Design Code, also called Children’s Code, which applies especially to social media and online services likely to be used by minors under the age of 18 in the UK.

The Children’s Code contains 15 standards for designers of online services and products. The aim is to ensure a minimum level of data protection. Therefore, the Code requires that apps, games, websites etc. are built up in a way which provides already a baseline of data protection. The following default settings should be mentioned here:

  • Glocalization disabled by default,
  • Profiling disabled by default,
  • Newly created profiles private and not public by default.

Base for the Children’s Code is the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 – local implementation law of the GDPR. Thus, the standards also include the GDPR Data Protection principles Transparency and Data Minimisation.

The requirements also and especially apply to the major social media and online services used by minors in the UK, e.g. TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.

The Code is designed to be risk-based. This means that not all organizations have to fulfil the same obligations. The more companies use, analyse and profile data from minors, the more they must undertake to comply with the Code.

easyJet Data Breach: 9 million customers affected

22. May 2020

The British airline ‘easyJet’ has been hacked. The hackers have been able to access personal data of approximately 9 million customers.

easyJet published a statement on the hacker attack and announced that e-mail addresses and travel details were among the concerned personal data of customers. Which personal data in detail belong to ‘travel data’ was not disclosed. In some cases, the hackers could also access credit card data. easyJet stated that there is no proof, that the accessed personal data was abused. easyjet now warns about fake mails in his name as well as in the name of ‘easyJet Holidays’.

The hack was noticed by easyJet in January, but was only made public this week. With becoming aware of the attack, easyJet took several measures and has blocked the unauthorized access in the meantime. easyJet is also in contact with the British Data Protection Authority ‘ICO’ and the National Security Center.

At this time, easyJet has not yet been able to evaluate how the attack could have occurred, but easyJet explained, that the hacker attack was no ‘general’ hacker attack, since the attack was very sophisticated compared to other hacker attacks. It is suspected that the attack originated from a group that has already hacked other airlines, such as British Airways in 2018.

easyJet announced that they will get in contact with concerned data subjects until May 26th to inform those about the breach and to explain further measures which should be taken in order to decrease the risk. easyJet customers who will not receive a statement until then are not concerned by the breach.

In connection with hacker attacks like these the risk for phishing attacks is the highest. In phishing attacks, criminals use fake e-mails, for example on behalf of well-known companies or authorities, to try to persuade users to pass on personal data or to click on prepared e-mail attachments containing malware.

UK: Betting companies had access to millions of data of children

28. January 2020

In the UK, betting companies have gained access to data from 28 million children under 14 and adolescents. The data was stored in a government database and could be used for learning purposes. Access to the platform is granted by the government. A company that was given access is said to have illegally given it to another company, which in turn allowed access for the betting companies. The betting providers used the access, among other things, to check age information online. The company accused of passing on the access denies the allegations, but has not yet made any more specific statements.

The British Department for Education speaks of an unacceptable situation. All access points have been closed and the cooperation has been terminated.

Category: Data breach · General · UK
Tags: , ,

High Court dismisses challenge regarding Automated Facial Recognition

12. September 2019

On 4 September, the High Court of England and Wales dismissed a challenge to the police’s use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology (“AFR”). The court ruled that the use of AFR was proportionate and necessary to meet the legal obligations of the police.

The pilot project AFR Locate was used for certain events and public places when the commission of crimes was likely. Up to 50 faces per second can be detected. The faces are then compared by biometric data analysis with wanted persons registered in police databases. If no match is found the images are deleted immediately and automatically.

An individual has initiated a judicial review process after he has not been identified as a wanted person, but is likely to have been captured by AFR Locate. He considered this to be illegal, in particular due to a violation of the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and data protection law in the United Kingdom. In his view, the police did not respect the data protection principles. In particular, that approach would violate the principle of Article 35 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”), which requires the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes to be lawful and fair. He also pointed out that the police had failed to carry out an adequate data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”).

The Court stated that the use of AFR has affected a person’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and that this type of biometric data has a private character in itself. Despite the fact that the images were erased immediately, this procedure constituted an interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, since it suffices that the data is temporarily stored.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the police’s action was in accordance with the law, as it falls within the police’s public law powers to prevent and detect criminal offences. The Court also found that the use of the AFR system is proportionate and that the technology can be used openly, transparently and with considerable public commitment, thus fulfilling all existing criteria. It was only used for a limited period, for a specific purpose and published before it was used (e.g. on Facebook and Twitter).

With regard to data protection law, the Court considers that the images of individuals captured constitute personal data, even if they do not correspond to the lists of persons sought, because the technology has singled them out and distinguished them from others. Nevertheless, the Court held that there was no violation of data protection principles, for the same reasons on which it denied a violation of Art. 8 ECHR. The Court found that the processing fulfilled the conditions of legality and fairness and was necessary for the legitimate interest of the police in the prevention and detection of criminal offences, as required by their public service obligations. The requirement of Sec. 35 (5) DPA 2018 that the processing is absolutely necessary was fulfilled, as was the requirement that the processing is necessary for the exercise of the functions of the police.

The last requirement under Sec. 35 (5) of the DPA 2018 is that a suitable policy document is available to regulate the processing. The Court considered the relevant policy document in this case to be short and incomplete. Nevertheless, it refused to give a judgment as to whether the document was adequate and stated that it would leave that judgment to the Information Commissioner Office (“ICO”), as it would publish more detailed guidelines.

Finally, the Court found that the impact assessment carried out by the police was sufficient to meet the requirements of Sec. 64 of DPA 2018.

The ICO stated that it would take into account the High Court ruling when finalising its recommendations and guidelines for the use of live face recognition systems.

London’s King’s Cross station facial recognition technology under investigation by the ICO

11. September 2019

Initially reported by the Financial Times, London’s King’s Cross station is under crossfire for making use of a live face-scanning system across its 67 acres large site. Developed by Argent, it was confirmed that the system has been used to ensure public safety, being part of a number of detection and tracking methods used in terms of surveillance at the famous train station. While the site is privately owned, it is widely used by the public and houses various shops, cafes, restaurants, as well as office spaces with tenants like, for example, Google.

The controversy behind the technology and its legality stems from the fact that it records everyone in its parameters without their consent, analyzing their faces and compairing them to a database of wanted criminals, suspects and persons of interest. While Developer Argent defended the technology, it has not yet explained what the system is, how it is used and how long it has been in place.

A day before the ICO launched its investigation, a letter from King’s Cross Chief Executive Robert Evans reached Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, explaining the matching of the technology against a watchlist of flagged individuals. In effect, if footage is unmatched, it is blurred out and deleted. In case of a match, it is only shared with law enforcement. The Metropolitan Police Service has stated that they have supplied images for a database to carry out facial scans to system, though it claims to not have done so since March, 2018.

Despite the explanation and the distinct statements that the software is abiding by England’s data protection laws, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has launched an investigation into the technology and its use in the private sector. Businesses would need to explicitly demonstrate that the use of such surveillance technology is strictly necessary and proportionate for their legitimate interests and public safety. In her statement, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham further said that she is deeply concerned, since “scanning people’s faces as they lawfully go about their daily lives, in order to identify them, is a potential threat to privacy that should concern us all,” especially if its being done without their knowledge.

The controversy has sparked a demand for a law about facial recognition, igniting a dialogue about new technologies and future-proofing against the yet unknown privacy issues they may cause.

Category: GDPR · General · UK
Tags: , , , ,

ICO releases a draft Code of Practice to consult on the Use of Personal Data in Political Campaigning

14. August 2019

The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) plans to give consultations on a new framework code of practice regarding the use of personal data in relation to politcal campaigns.

ICO states that in any democratic society it is vital for political parties,  candidates and campaigners to be able to communicate effectively with voters. Equally vital, though, is that all organisations involved in political campaigning use personal data in a transparent, lawful way that is understood by the people.

Along with the internet, politcal campaigning has become increasingly sophisticated and innovative. Using new technologies and techniques to understand their voters and target them, political campaigning has changed, using social media, the electoral register or screening names for ethnicity and age. In a statement from June, ICO has adressed the risk that comes with innovation, which, intended or not, can undermine the democratic process by hidden manipulation through the processing of personal data that the people do not understand.

In this light, ICO expresses that their current guidance is outdated, since it has not been updated since the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It does not reflect modern campainging practices. However, the framework does not establish new requirements for campaigners, instead aims at explaining and clarifying data protection and electronic marketing laws as they already stand.

Before drafting the framework, the Information Commissioner launched a call for views in October 2018 in hopes of input from various people and organisations. The framework is hoped to have taken into account the responses the ICO had received in the process.

In hopes of being the basis of a statutory code of practice if the relevant legislation is introduced, the draft of the framework code of practice is now out for public consultation, and will remain open for public access until Ocotber 4th.

CNIL and ICO publish revised cookie guidelines

6. August 2019

The French data protection authority CNIL as well as the British data protection authority ICO have revised and published their guidelines on cookies.

The guidelines contain several similarities, but also differ in some respects.

Both France and the UK consider rules that apply to cookies to be also applicable to any device that stores or accesses information. In addition, both authorities stress that users must give specific, free and unambiguous consent before cookies are placed. Further scrolling of the website cannot be considered as consent. Likewise, obtaining consent from T&Cs is not lawful. This procedure violates Art. 7 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), according to which the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. In addition, all parties who place cookies must be named so that informed consent can be obtained. Finally, both authorities point out that browser settings alone are not a sufficient basis for valid consent.

With regard to the territorial scope, CNIL clarifies that the cookie rules apply only to the processing of cookies within the activities of an establishment of a controller or processor in France, regardless of whether the processing takes place in France. The English guideline does not comment on this.

Cookie walls are considered non-compliant with GDPR by the French data protection authority due to the negative consequences for the user in case of refusal. ICO, on the other hand, is of the opinion that a consent forced on the basis of a cookie wall is probably not valid. Nevertheless GDPR must be balanced with other rights. Insofar ICO has not yet delivered a clear position.

Regarding analytic cookies, CNIL explains that a consent is not always necessary, namely not if they correspond to a list of cumulative requirements created by CNIL. ICO, on the other hand, does not exempt cookies from the consent requirement even in the case of analytic cookies.

Finally, CNIL notes that companies have six months to comply with the rules. However, this period will only be set in motion by the publication of a statement by the CNIL, which is still pending. CNIL expects this statement to be finalised during the first quarter of 2020. The ICO does not foresee such a time limit.

EDPB publishes information note on data transfer in the event of a no-deal Brexit

25. February 2019

The European Data Protection Board has published an information note to explain data transfer to organisations and facilitate preparation in the event that no agreement is reached between the EEA and the UK. In case of a no-deal Brexit, the UK becomes a third country for which – as things stand at present – no adequacy decision exists.

EDPB recommends that organisations transferring data to the UK carry out the following five preparation steps:

• Identify what processing activities will imply a personal data transfer to the UK
• Determine the appropriate data transfer instrument for your situation
• Implement the chosen data transfer instrument to be ready for 30 March 2019
• Indicate in your internal documentation that transfers will be made to the UK
• Update your privacy notice accordingly to inform individuals

In addition, EDPB explains which instruments can be used to transfer data to the UK:
– Standard or ad hoc Data Protection Clauses approved by the European Commission can be used.
– Binding Corporate Rules for data processing can be defined.
– A code of conduct or certification mechanism can be established.

Derogations are possible in the cases mentioned by article 49 GDPR. However, they are interpreted very restrictively and mainly relate to processing activities that are occasional and non-repetitive. Further explanations on available derogations and how to apply them can be found in the EDPB Guidelines on Article 49 of GDPR.

The French data protection authority CNIL has published an FAQ based on the information note of the EDPB, explaining the consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the data transfer to the UK and which preparations should be made.

ICO fines companies for not paying the data protection fee

4. December 2018

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fines the first companies for not paying the data protection fee. Unless they are exempt, all organisations, companies and sole traders who process personal data have to pay an annual data protection fee.

Depending on their maximum turnover, number of employees and whether they are a charity or public authority, the fee varies from £40 to £2,900. Whereas the fine for not paying varies from £400 to £4,000. The fines recovered go to the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund. The regulations came into force together with the new Data Protection Act on 25 May 2018.

“Following numerous attempts to collect the fees via our robust collection process, we are now left with no option but to issue fines to these organisations. They must now pay these fines within 28 days or risk further legal action. (…) You are breaking the law if you process personal data or are responsible for processing it and do not pay the data protection fee to the ICO”, said Paul Arnold, Deputy Chief Executive Officer at the ICO.

More than 900 fine notices have been issued by the ICO since September and more are set to follow. Companies can check if their fee is due to renewal on the ICO’s website.

Category: General · UK
Tags: ,
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
1 2 3