Call McGarr Solicitors on: 01 6351580

Use the GDPR to find who has advertised to you on Facebook, and get them to delete your details

This is a simple post. Sometimes you get ads on Facebook and you are just not interested in what they’re selling. This is a way to find out who has uploaded your email address into facebook to target ads at you, and then- if you’re in the EU- how to use the new General Data Protection Regulation to get those advertisers to delete you from their system.

So, here we go.

First, get a copy of all your data from Facebook.

For this you; (deep breath)

Login to Facebook

Go to the little arrow in the top right hand corner of the Facebook screen, then select ‘Settings’ Here's where the settings menu on Facebook is

Then, on the left hand menu, select ‘Your Facebook Information’

 

Then select ‘Download a copy of your Facebook information to keep or to transfer to another service’

Now click the big green ‘Download Archive’ button

Now it’ll ask you to put your password in. Finally, it’ll tell you that it’ll email you when the archive is ready to download. When the email comes and you click on the link it contains, you will eventually download a zip file. Unzip it and you will end up with a folder containing something like this: 

Choose ‘Index’. Then your browser will open a mostly white page with your profile detail showing. On the bottom left side of the screen, you’ll find a menu.

Choose ‘Ads’

Now, scroll down the (likely) very long list until you reach the last section- headed, ‘Advertisers who uploaded a contact list with your information’. These people and bodies all have your data- they must, because they uploaded it into Facebook, to show you ads.

And, if you’re in the EU, under the GDPR, you can invoke your right under Article 17.1(b) to withdraw consent for these companies to hold your data or process it in any way. Just email them these words any time after the 25th May 2018:

Dear [entity name]

I am currently within the EU and I have learned from Facebook Ireland Ltd that you have in the past uploaded a contact list to the Facebook platform which included my information.

I wish to invoke my right of erasure of that data and any other data you may hold relating to me under Article 17.1(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. I also wish you, as per Article 17.2, to take steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that I, as the data subject, have requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, my personal data.

Please confirm you have completed this task within one month of the date of sending of this email.

Yours faithfully

[Your name]

If you’re feeling particularly feisty, you can even build an email mail merge by cutting and pasting the whole list into a spreadsheet, finding the contact emails for each of the bodies and then scheduling the message to be automatically sent on the 26th May 2018, one day after the GDPR comes into effect.

Office Notice: Closed due to Storm Emma, reopening Monday

Four Courts Dome in snow

For the safety of our staff and clients, our office is closed today, Friday 2nd March, due to the snowstorm.

We will reopen on Monday 5th March as usual.

In the meantime, we’re still contactable by email on [email protected]

USA -v- Microsoft Supreme Court hearing, Digital Rights Ireland and ORG Amicus Brief

US Supreme Court building from the front portico

USA -v- Microsoft is an important ongoing case, listed for hearing today before the US Supreme Court.

Microsoft have been very firm that the US government’s efforts to make domestic court orders effective outside of the US is not based on a correct interpretation of US law. While lower courts sided with the US, the Federal Appeals Court of the 2nd Circuit found in favour of Microsoft. You can read the amicus brief submitted by Digital Rights Ireland, Liberty and the Open Rights Group in that earlier hearing.

However, as the case centres around the means by which NY law enforcement are seeking to access data of an email account which resides in Dublin, this Supreme Court hearing is also crucially significant to Ireland and the rest of the EU. For that reason, Digital Rights Ireland instructed us to file an Amicus Brief in the US case, in conjunction with the global law firm of White & Case, who have acted pro bono in their representation. Owen Pell of White & Case’s New York Office has been the lead counsel in the preparation of this Supreme Court brief and we would like to extend particular thanks to him for his collegiality and his expertise.

Given the significance of the case for the wider EU, the Open Rights Group in the UK have joined Digital Rights Ireland as amicus on this brief. We hope it will be of aid to the US court in assessing the significance of the order being appealed by the US government for EU citizens and European states, in the light of the existing US and EU Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

You can read the Brief here:

Digital Rights Ireland and Open Rights Group Supreme Court Amicus Brief by Simon McGarr on Scribd

The Data Sharing Agreement re the Public Services Card

It’s a requirement that public bodies sharing personal data, and relying on the provisions of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to do so, have an agreement in place first.

I wrote in 2014 about the (eventually)  fatal consequences for Irish Water’s attempts to rely on the 2005 Act in the absence of that Ministerial agreement. (It was illegal, and the hundreds of thousands of PPSN records Irish Water collected were subsequently scrapped.)

So, having read through a good deal of documentation on the Public Services Card, I knew that the Department of Social Protection were claiming that they were the Data Controller for the National biometric ID Database which the Card is linked to.

Despite this, for reasons the Dept has chosen to never explain (I could hazard a guess) they have passed the storage and management of that database to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

So I FOI’d the Agreement which underpins that relationship.

You can read it yourself below.

There are striking things about this 2014 document, but one thing stands out above them all.

It’s an agreement between two Ministers, but it’s neither signed by them or on their behalf. Though the opening text recognises that what is needed is that the Ministers make this Agreement, it is eventually signed by Departmental Officials. It isn’t signed for and on behalf of the respective Ministers either. Rather, it’s signed For and On Behalf of the two Departments.

Leaving us with the entire PSC Database lacking the underpinning of a completed Agreement between the relevant Ministers.

(Oh, and unless it was renewed before 17th February 2016 the Agreement, insofar as there may have ever been one, has lapsed.

The Public Services Card- An ID database and ID card

There is an excellent article by Elaine Edwards online (but not in the paper) regarding a pensioner whose pension payments have been stopped because she declined to submit to the biometric scanning and so on involved in being given an Public Services Card.

This card has been, to be charitable, inaccurately referred to as voluntary by Minister Pascal Donoghue.

However, if you don’t agree to submit to the carding process (which involves a biometric scan of your face, as well as a system to associate that ID record with your mobile phone) you currently can have any and all your social welfare payments (pension, free travel, children’s allowance, maternity benefit, paternity benefit…) cut off.

In addition, you cannot get a new driving licence, you cannot get a replacement passport if it has been lost or stolen, you cannot get your first passport or be made a citizen.

That’s the list of consequences for not volunteering so far. You can read the ambitious list of planned uses on the Department’s own website. I’ve reproduced it below, for ease of reference. Here’s an excellent piece by Loughlin O’Nolan and Elaine Edwards on just how voluntary this system is.

So, what we have here is a national ID card system which has never been debated by the Oireachtas, isn’t based on any primary legislation and has been introduced (where there is any legal justification for it cited at all) by wilfully forcing a new interpretation onto old legislation.

The Legal Basis that wasn’t there

I’d like to just rattle through some of that claimed legal justification, simply to demonstrate how shaky it is. Anyone who has read my previous pieces on the Health Identifiers Act 2014 and the Primary Online Database may notice some familiar themes emerging.

Here’s what the Department of Social Welfare cites as the legal basis for cutting off the pensions of old ladies who refuse to comply with the demand they get an ID card:

The Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, viz.
– Section 247C(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may require any person receiving a benefit to satisfy the Minister as to his or her identity;
– Section 247C(2) of the Act specifies the consequences of failure to satisfy the Minister in relation to identity as required, specifically that a person shall be disqualified from receiving a benefit;
– Section 247C(3) of the Act specifies the manner in which the Minister may be so satisfied; in effect, this Section describes the process for registering a person’s identity

The first two of those provisions simply say that a person who refuses to satisfy the Minister as to his or her identity may have their payments stopped until their identity has been confirmed. This is a completely reasonable and laudable requirement, necessary to make sure money is going to the right person.

But here, the Department hasn’t said that the lady whose pension they’ve stopped isn’t who she says she is. They’re not denying her identity at all- they know who she is. An official even visited her at her house and was shown her marriage cert. The lady has produced her passport- the document which Ireland expects every other country in the world to be an acceptable proof of identity at their borders.

Again, they know who she is. That’s not why they’ve cut her off. They’ve stopped her pension because she refuses to comply with the biometric carding process.

And for that, they’re relying on Section 247C(3) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The actual provision was only brought in in 2013 in the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013

The problem for the Department is that, though Section 247C(3) describes a visit to a Social Welfare office, showing some documents and having your picture taken and giving a copy of your signature as being the Minister’s preferred method of you proving who you are, it doesn’t say that the purpose of doing so is to have your data entered onto the national Public Services Card register, with all the subsequent data sharing and processing that involves.

The Act sets out, in a clause not cited by the Department, that this attendance and these records can only be lawfully used for one purpose. Section 247C(1):

“to satisfy the Minister as to his or her identity”

Once that’s done, there is no lawful basis for any further use of that data. No legislative requirement to be placed on an ID register. No basis for sharing the data collected with other government agencies (as envisioned by Section 8 of the Health Identifiers Act, for example).

Joan Burton, when she was Minister for Social Protection, acknowledged that building an ID database was something which couldn’t simply be treated as an administrative act. It has serious and permanent consequences for the relationship between the citizen and the state.

The question of the introduction or otherwise of a national identity card was not part of SAFE’s remit. The matter of establishing a national identity index and producing a national identity card is a wider issue. It would require due consideration by the appropriate agencies before any policy decisions could be formulated by Government and would require the development and implementation of legislation to support any such policy. (source)

Now, you can issue a person with an ID card without a legal basis, if they consent to it. Of course you can. The problem is, in order for that consent to be valid under EU law, it can’t have been compelled. It can’t have been extracted on pain of penury at the loss of your pension, of the child benefit you rely on or your unemployment benefit.

And a person can’t give consent if they haven’t been clearly told to what purposes the data they are agreeing to hand over will be put.

Until we have a full and open debate on the merits of a national ID card (and the identity index database those cards extend from) we cannot decide if we are happy with the consequences of such a plan or (as happened in the UK) whether we decide it is a dangerous and illiberal step.

If the Government wants to legislate for an ID card, let it first propose the plan and see it through the Oireachtas.

Personal data is legitimately gathered and used by the state on the basis that it is a safe guardian of citizens’ fundamental data and privacy rights. Without trust that the state will do the right thing, the legitimacy of that collection breaks down.

If the state won’t even admit to what it is doing, how does it expect citizens to trust that it will do the right thing?

Roadmap for mandatory requirements for the Public Services Card

Painful Pincers at the Border

Photo by: Magnus Norden

The UK government has issued the outlines of a new Data Protection Bill. It will be a substantial piece of work because it will replicate the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR is EU law and is directly effective in all Member States including the UK, on 25th May 2018. The UK Brexit plan requires “replication” rather than “supplementation” because the UK has no intention of cutting itself free of EU “red tape”, if it is in the form of the GDPR.

The UK Brexit plan also, it seems, has set the UK on a race to implementation of its new Data Protection Bill on or before the coming into force of the GDPR. So, it will introduce the Bill to parliament in September next, where there is the narrowest of time slots to do so.

We now know, from the UK Information Commissioner (ICO), that she intends to levy fines equivalent to those provided for in the GDPR, on persons, organisations and companies that breach the new Data Protection law.

Any miscreant Irish company doing business in the UK will be exposed to those fines if the ICO applies the UK Data Protection law, rather than the GDPR. That will be a major problem for cross-border firms doing business with Northern Ireland. Whatever about any [mistaken] assumption those firms may harbour that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner will not apply high fines for GDPR breaches, they can readily believe the ICO will apply those fines.

What are the limits to the fines? There are two categories of fines:

A. Fines up to €10 million or 2% of annual global turnover;

B. Fines up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover;

Consider the recent Swedish data breach involving the Swedish Transport Agency and IBM. On available information they would each have faced a fine from category B if the breach had occurred after 25th May 2018.

 

Medical Negligence*- Case Report on hospital liability

Court: UK Court of Appeal

March 2017

Facts:
The Plaintiff suffered a head injury from an assault. He attended at the Defendant’s hospital – the A & E dept., with a friend. The receptionist took his details and told him he would have to wait and it would be up to five hours before he was seen. In fact the hospital operated a system of having such patients seen within thirty minutes by a triage nurse. The receptionist did not mention this.

Before the expiry of the thirty minutes and the arrival of the triage nurse the Plaintiff and his friend left the hospital without notifying the receptionist.

He went home to take paracetamol for his head pain. The triage nurse came into the waiting area and looked for him. However, she couldn’t find him and so he was given the assessment which the hospital system had intended he would benefit from.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiff’s condition deteriorated while he was at home and he was subsequently taken to the hospital by ambulance. On arrival at the hospital, he was medically assessed and was found to have an extradural haematoma. He subsequently underwent surgery. However after his surgery he was left with a permanent left hemiplegia and long-term disabilities. The Plaintiff sued, within the Statute of Limitations for medical negligence.

Decisions:

The initial UK trial court found for the Defendant hospital. The Plaintiff appealed the decision to the UK Court of Appeal.

The appeal court found for the Defendant hospital, with one dissenting judgment. The Appeal court found, among other things, that liability could not extend to the Defendant taking responsibility for the Plaintiff walking out of the hospital without reporting to the receptionist that he was leaving.

The dissenting judgment found that the Plaintiff’s decision to leave did not break the connection between the injury suffered and the poor quality of the information given to the Plaintiff about the waiting period.

The IBM Complex

Photo by: Magnus Norden

Reputedly, corporate America values conformity, hence the maxim – “Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM” – applied to the purchase of materials or services.

This approach fails to understand the drawbacks of conformity and the failure to understand both IBM and the real world.

In Sweden the Transport Agency hired IBM to manage its vehicle registration and drivers’ licence database. The price, not relevant here, was €100 million.

In the events that have happened, IBM did not understand that it was not in the USA – it was in Europe, understanding which required knowledge of the real world.

The Transport Agency failed to understand IBM, understanding which required knowledge of the real world.

Each of them failed to understand Data Protection and data security. IBM recklessly distributed huge quantities of personal data (and State secrets) collected in discharging its tasks, to many IBM business units outside Sweden, in Europe (and possibly beyond).

The Transport Agency itself stored the data in cloud servers. It offered access to the data to commercial users.

Sweden is in the European Union. European Union law obliged Sweden to safeguard the personal data of its citizens and to ensure that any processor of that data (IBM) conformed to EU law. Sweden and IBM were obliged to limit access to the data, not strew it across Europe.

So, the Director General of the Transport Agency has been fired. Two Swedish government ministers have been fired. The government remains in office on a thread.

All of this happened before the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force next May. If IBM were to repeat such errors after that date it would face fines calculated on its global turnover.

Ireland is exposed to the same risks as Sweden; we must not try to sub-contract our obligations under the GDPR – it won’t work. We must not preserve our careers by “hiring IBM”; it won’t work.

We have only ten months left to conform to the real world.

People will get fired; companies will go bust.

Digital Rights Ireland: Application for a Trial of Preliminary Issue

In January 2012, in the case of Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v The Minister for Communications & Ors., the High court referred certain questions to the CJEU (ECJ) under Article 267 TEU.

In the events that happened the ECJ struck down or found invalid Directive 2006/24/EC in the course of the hearing of the referred questions.

The High court is now hearing the parties (Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. and the Minister for Communications & Ors.) in the resumed proceedings, interrupted by the reference made in 2012.

Interested parties may attend. The hearing is taking place in Court No. 14 on the 2nd floor of the Four Courts in Dublin. It may conclude today.

McGarr Solicitors act for Digital Rights Ireland Ltd.

GDPR – Start now!

egg timer image to illustrate article on Cerebral palsy claims statute of limitations

If you do not know about the personal data you hold, you cannot comply with the GDPR. So, trace the flow of personal data in your company. Bear in mind that the personal data of employees is covered by the GDPR.

Compliance with the GDPR will involve those self-same employees. They will need training in the application of the principles of the GDPR in your organization.

Possibly you are obliged to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO). If so, even if you decide you need one regardless of a lack of obligation to appoint one, there is little point in leaving it to May 2018 to do so. The DPO will be needed to help you reach compliance with the GDPR.

As your DPO will tell you quickly, many systems must be devised and implemented to ensure compliance. You will have to ensure that data protection is “baked in” to your systems. In other words, no change can take place without a rational analysis of the data protection implications and the measurement of risk for any such change. Here, speaking of change carries the assumption that your organization is not currently in compliance. It would be an unusual organization if it were to be already in compliance with the GDPR.

The GDPR requires the writing of a Data Protection Impact Assessment for change. To comply with the GDPR is to change. So, you will need to write your Data Protection Impact Assessment.

The foregoing is a cursory look at what you have to do. Start doing it now. You are possibly going to be late and not in compliance on 25th May 2018 but if you recognize the urgency you might just make it.

Start. Start now. Do not get diverted or distracted. You need to focus; you will need all the time that remains to do even the few things listed above.