The European Commission has announced that it is mounting a legal challenge in respect of the use of targeted online advertising in the UK. The challenge follows complaints which were made to the Commission in response to BT’s act of testing the technology on BT broadband users without their consent. The technology, which is the brainchild of a company called Phorm, enables internet service providers (ISPs) to profile what sites internet users visit so as to enable advertising companies more astutely to target their adverts on individual users. The Commission has taken the view that the UK has breached EU data protection laws by permitting the deployment of the technology in the absence of user consent. The Information Commissioner’s Office has previously stated that the use of the technology would be permissible if operated on the basis that users have opted in to the system. The Commission’s challenge raises real questions as to the legality of Google’s recently launched behavioural targeting system. See further my post on this system below.
Google’s Streetview – ICO Responds
April 13th, 2009 by Anya ProopsThe launch of Google’s Streetview service in March 2009 sparked considerable debate within the British media. Privacy campaigners criticised the intrusive nature of the service, which enables internet users to access 360 degree views of people, homes, cars and streets in 25 of Britain’s cities. It would appear that the Information Commissioner has now had his say on the matter. According to an article published in yesterday’s Observer newspaper, the Information Commissioner rejected a complaint brought by Privacy International which challenged the legality of the service. Notably, the Observer reports that the Commissioner dismissed the suggestion put forward by Privacy International that consent should have been sought from individuals whose image was captured in the pictures shown by Streetview. He apparently compared the Streetview service with images of individuals broadcast during televised football matches, where similarly consent would not be sought. Of course, Streetview is not the only part of Google’s operations which have given rise to privacy concerns. Not least in recent weeks, concerns have been raised about another Google innovation, which enables advertisers to target adverts on individual Google users by relying on site-visit profiles developed by Google. The so-called behavioural targeting system enables Google to build up a profile of the internet sites visited by a particular user when using the Google search engine. The profile is then used as a basis for indicating what advertising the user may be interested in. Concerns expressed about the new system have included that individuals are not asked whether they wish to receive targeted advertising and, further, that the right to opt out of the system is not adequately advertised to users.
Guardian article on Streetview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/12/google-street-view-privacy
Channel 4 report on Behavioural Targetting System
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/how+google+adverts+got+personal/3076122
Big Brother Takes to the Road
March 31st, 2009 by Anya ProopsMany of us are aware that, when in use, our mobile phones can be used by telecoms companies and security agencies to trace our whereabouts. However, few of us are likely to have been contemplating a scenario where our cars would contain built-in tracking devices enabling state authorities to have, in effect, a system of near total road surveillance. However, a new EU backed project, known as the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project, may go a long way towards achieving that result. In particular, it is understood that the project, which is due to be unveiled later on this year, envisages that, by 2013, such devices would commonly be built into newly manufactured cars and that a universal frequency will be made available so as to enable state authorities to monitor the location of all cars fitted with the device. As one might expect, privacy and civil liberties groups are said to be up in arms about this development. It is understood that the European Data Protection Supervisor will make a formal announcement on the privacy implications of CVIS technology soon.
Media article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/31/surveillance-transport-communication-box
Parliamentary Privilege in the Spotlight
March 27th, 2009 by Anya Proops
It is a fundamental principle of our constitutional structures that Parliament and its members should not normally be subject to judicial scrutiny or supervision. The statutory basis of this principle is to be found in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which states that: ‘the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament’. The breadth of the principle of Parliamentary privilege was confirmed in the case of Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 where Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that the effect of the principle was that the courts would not allow any challenge to be made to what is said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges. Yesterday Lord Oakeshott, Lib Dem Treasury Spokesman, availed himself of the protection of this important privilege when he told peers about the location of certain documents relating to Barclays’ tax arrangements. The documents in question are particularly controversial because a mere eight days ago the High Court granted Barclays injunctive relief requiring the Guardian newspaper to remove the documents from its website on grounds of their confidentiality (Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2009] EWHC 591 QB). The curious result of Lord Oakeshott’s comments would seem to be that the Guardian still cannot publish the documents on its website, pursuant to the order made by the High Court, but can report Lord Oakeshott’s comments by placing reliance on the doctrine of qualified privilege.
The decision of the High Court to grant Barclays injunctive relief in respect of the information published on the Guardian’s website is itself likely to be of considerable interest to information lawyers. This is because in reaching that decision the judge, Blake J, accepted that the documents had retained the quality of confidentiality even though there was evidence before the Court that, quite apart from the Guardian website, the documents had already been published on at least one other internet site which would not itself be subject to an application for injunctive relief and, further, there had already been a degree of ‘internet chatter’ about the injunction process. That the court was prepared to accept that the documents retained an element of confidentiality in these circumstances highlights the fact that the judiciary will not automatically accept that publication of information on the internet necessarily equates to publication to all the world.
High Court judgment:
High Court judgments on Parliamentary privilege (appeal from Information Tribunal)
Office of Government Commerce v ICO & Ors – http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/737.html&query=title+(+Office+)+and+title+(+government+)+and+title+(+commerce+)&method=boolean
Corporate Office of the House of Commons v ICO & Ors – http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1084.html&query=title+(+Corporate+)+and+title+(+officer+)&method=boolean
Excerpt from Hansard:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90326-0003.htm#09032630000629
Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/27/barclays-tax-documents-parliament
Rowntree Report on Database State
March 23rd, 2009 by Anya ProopsThe Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has today published its report ‘The Database State’. The report purports to amount to the most comprehensive map of central government databases yet created. In total 46 databases across the major government departments were considered in the report, including, for example, the national DNA database, the national pupil database, the NHS detailed care record system and the automatic number-plate recognition system. In summary, the report concluded that:
- a quarter of the 46 databases reviewed were ‘almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law; that they should be scrapped or substantially redesigned’ (including, for example, the Contactpoint index of all children in England and the national DNA database – on the latter database, see further the January 2009 post on the Marper case);
- ‘more than half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge’ (including, for example, the NHS Summary Care Record and the National Pupil Database);
- fewer than 15% were ‘effective, proportionate and necessary with a proper legal basis for any privacy instrusions’;
- Britain was generally out of line with other developed countries as a result of its comparably greater tendancy to centralise and share records on sensitive matters like healthcare and social services; that ‘the benefits claimed for data sharing are often illusory’.
Along with the House of Lords Report on the Surveillance Society published in February 2009 (see further the February 2009 post on the Lords Report), this report is likely to increase pressure on the Government to reexamine a raft of policies on data collection, management and storage.
http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf
Executive Summary:
http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf