The government's controversial plans to share personal
data between departments and with the private sector are "too wide"
and the safeguards "weak", according to the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO), reports
Out-law.com.
The ICO has released its
second opinion on the contents of the Coroners and Justice
Bill, which proposes legalising greater sharing of information
between government departments and with outside contractors and
private companies that request it.
When the bill's proposals were first published, the ICO was less
critical.
"Some have suggested that the bill's information sharing
provisions represent an unwarranted interference with the privacy
of personal information. We do not agree. The provisions of the DPA
will continue to apply to the sharing of personal information
whether undertaken within the scope of an information order or
otherwise," said its opinion, published on 22 January.
The ICO now believes that the proposed new law poses some
dangers to privacy and the government's accountability for the
processing of personal data it has collected.
"The bill's information-sharing provisions are too wide, and its
safeguards relatively weak. The provisions should only apply in
precisely defined circumstances where there is a legal barrier to
information sharing that would be in the public interest," it
said.
Rosemary Jay, a privacy law expert at Pinsent Masons, the law
firm behind Out-law.com,
which publicises the latest ICO position, warned of similar
concerns when the bill was published.
"It would allow for information to be shared with banks or other
financial institutions," she said in January.
"There is no restriction on purpose of the sharing, so for
example, it would enable the minister to make an order empowering
the tax authorities to disclose the earnings of individuals to
credit reference agencies."
Jay said that such disclosures could be made without the person
whose information is being shared ever knowing about it.
The ICO is also concerned that the law will allow government to
make major changes in the field of information law without
consulting parliament.
"The bill needs an additional safeguard to prevent the use of
information-sharing orders in the context of large-scale data
sharing initiatives that would constitute significant changes to
public policy," said the ICO opinion.
This article first appeared on
Out-law.com, part of
international law firm Pinsent Masons. It has been reproduced with
permission.