Another fine mess

For those working in Data Protection, there are many interesting things to note about the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. There is the clarification of consent, which may send tawdry marketers into a spin. There is the tightening of the rules over criminal records. There is the helpful emphasis on risk. My current favourite thing is a sly anti-establishment streak – here and there, the GDPR returns to the theme of the power imbalance between the data subject and the big public institution, and seeks to even up the score.

For some, however, there is only one thing to talk about. All that matters is the fines. Fines fines fines, all day long. A conference held in London last week was Fine City as far as the tweets were concerned. COMPANIES MIGHT GO BUST, apparently. Meanwhile, the Register breathlessly reheated a press release from cyber security outfit NCC Group, featuring a magical GDPR calculator that claims ICO’s 2016 penalties would have been either £59 million or £69 million under GDPR (the figure is different in the Register’s headline and story, and I can’t be bothered to find the original because it’s all bullshit).

This is my prediction. There will never be a maximum GDPR penalty in the UK. Nobody will ever be fined €20 million (however we calculate it in diminishing Brexit Pounds), or 4% of annual turnover. There will be a mild swelling in the amount of fines, but the dizzy heights so beloved of the phalanx of new GDPR experts (TRANSLATION: people in shiny suits who were in sales and IT in 2015) will never be scaled. It’s a nonsense myth from people with kit to sell. I have something to sell, friends, and I’m not going to sell it like this.

I have no quibble with DP officers and IG managers hurling a blood-curdling depiction of the penalties at senior management when they’re trying to get more / some resources to deal with the GDPR onslaught – I would have done it. There is probably a proper term for the mistake NCC made with their calculation, but I’m calling it the Forgetting The ICO Has To Do It Syndrome. NCC say Pharmacy2U’s penalty would inflate from £130,000 to £4.4 million, ignoring the fact that the decision would not be made by a robot. Pharmacy2U flogged the data of elderly and vulnerable people to dodgy health supplement merchants, and ICO *only* fined them £130,000, despite having a maximum of £500,000. Of course, some penalties have caused genuine pain for cash-strapped public authorities, but when NCC say that their adjusted-for-GDPR Pharmacy2U fine represented “a significant proportion of its revenues and potentially enough to put it out of business“, they’re not adjusting their hot air for reality.

Take the example of a monetary penalty issued by the ICO in March against a barrister. The barrister was involved in proceedings at the Family Court and the Court of Protection, so her files contained sensitive information about children and vulnerable adults. Despite guidance issued by the Law Society in 2013, they were stored unencrypted on her home computer. While upgrading the software on the machine, her husband backed up the files to online storage. Some of the files were indexed by search engines, and were subsequently found by a local authority lawyer.

The ICO fined the barrister £1000, reduced to £800 if they paid on time. I don’t think all barristers are loaded, but most could pay a penalty of £800 without going bankrupt. £800 isn’t remotely enough for a breach as basic and avoidable as this. The aggravating factors are everywhere – the Law Society guidance, the lack of encryption, the fact that the husband had access to the data. If the ICO was capable of issuing a £4.4 million penalty, they’d fine a barrister more than £800 for this mess. And what’s worse, they redacted the barrister’s name from the notice. The ICO offered no explanation for this, so I made an FOI request for the barrister’s name and for information about why the name was redacted.

They refused to give me the name, but disclosed internal correspondence about their decision to redact. There is a lot in the response to be concerned about. For one thing, in refusing to give me the name, the ICO contradicts its own penalty notice. The notice describes an ongoing contravention from 2013 (when the Law Society guidance was issued) to 2016 (when the data was discovered). Nevertheless, the FOI response states that “this data breach was considered a one off error“, and a reference to this characterisation is also made in the notes they disclosed to me.

If it was a one-off error, ICO couldn’t have issued the penalty, because they don’t have the power to fine people for incidents, only for breaches (in this case, the absence of appropriate technical and organisation security measures required by the Seventh Data Protection principle). Given that the notice states explicitly that the breach lasted for years, the ICO’s response isn’t true. It’s bad enough that the ICO is still mixing up incidents and breaches four years after this confusion lost them the Scottish Borders Tribunal appeal, it’s even worse that they seem not to understand the point of fining Data Controllers.

In the notes disclosed to me about the decision to redact the notice, ICO officials discuss the “negative impact” of the fine on the barrister, especially as she is a “professional person who is completely reliant on referrals from external clients“. Despite the Head of Enforcement putting a succinct and pragmatic case for disclosure: “it is easier to explain why we did (proportionate, deterrent effect) rather than why we didn’t“, he is unfortunately persuaded that the most important thing is to “avoid any damage to reputation”. Bizarrely, one person claimed that they could “get the deterrent message across” despite not naming the barrister.

The GDPR requires that fines be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” – an anonymous £800 fine fails on each point. Anyone who takes their professional obligations seriously needs no horror stories to persuade them. For those who do not, an effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalty is either a stinging fine or naming and shaming. The ICO had no appetite for either option, and effectively let the barrister get away with it. They valued her professional reputation above the privacy of people whose data she put at risk, and future clients who will innocently give their confidential and private information to someone with this shoddy track record.

If the NCC Group, and all the various vendors and GDPR carpetbaggers are to be believed, within a year, the UK will operate under a regime of colossal, multi-million pound fines that will bring errant businesses to their knees. In reality, the ICO cut the fines on charities by 90% to avoid upsetting donors, and rendered their enforcement against an irresponsible data controller pointless for fear of putting her out of business.

These two pictures cannot be reconciled. It is entirely possible for the ICO to put someone out of business – indeed, many recipients of their PECR penalties are forced into liquidation (this may be a ploy to avoid the fines, but nevertheless, the businesses close). But the majority of PECR penalties are issued against businesses operating on the very fringe of legality – they are not mainstream data controllers. They are not nice, professional barristers. They are not the audience for the Great GDPR Fine Hysteria. If the ICO cannot stomach the risk of putting a single barrister out of business pour encourager les autres, it is disingenuous to pretend that they will rain down fire on mainstream data controllers after May 2018. We’ll get more of the same – cautious, reactive, distracted by the incident, and unwilling to take aim at hard targets. Plus ça change.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

Last September, I was on holiday in Greece, full of the joys of ancient architecture, sunshine and Greek food. I decided that having spent too much of my time having a pop at charities and fundraisers and the Institute of Fundraising, I would do that thing that people always tell negative smart-arses like me to do. WHY DON’T YOU DO SOMETHING HELPFUL INSTEAD OF SNIPING FROM THE SIDELINES. I decided that they had a point.

I decided to write a clear, plain English guide to fundraising and charities based largely on the first data protection principle, setting out what Data Protection really requires from Data Protection. I wrote a blog asking for questions that charities and fundraisers really wanted the answers to, planning to write the guide over Christmas and publish it in January. Initially, I had lofty ideas for something interactive, but it came to nothing, so a guide to DP and fundraising was the aim.

Friends, things did not go to plan. Instead of writing the guide, my Christmas was dominated by some unexpected visits to hospital, and several encounters where medical professionals cheerfully reassured me that people with my condition often only find out when they have a stroke. Seasons Greetings and all that, Doc, but any sentence that contains the words ‘stroke’ or ‘brain tumour’ isn’t reassuring. The eventual diagnosis was far from serious, but it still exploded any chance I had of doing the guide on time.

By the time things calmed down, it was January, and I was writing my charity guide in fits and starts while doing loads of work around the country. And then every two minutes, someone was arranging a conference or publishing guidance and it seemed I had missed the boat. More than once, I wondered if there was any point in finishing my charity guide when the ICO and the Fundraising Regulator had already weighed in on the subject.

Then I actually read the guidance in question, and I decided that both regulators hadn’t hit the target I was aiming for – a candid, realistic and human guide to the legislation. Moreover, having relentlessly criticised charities and fundraisers, annoying a good many good people in the process, I felt that if I had something useful, something positive to give, I was obliged do so. Therefore, with no great fanfare and with no ambition further that the hope that some people might read it and understand DP better, I am publishing my guide today. If you would like to read it, please click here to get it from the downloads section of my website. You don’t need to register or sign up to anything to download it.

I did intend to say that this would be the last thing I write about charities and fundraising because surely by now I’ve said everything I possibly could and I don’t want this blog to become solely about charities. Then I realised I have Strong Opinions about the Fundraising Preference Service which some fundraisers may even agree with, so I am not going to make that claim. Nevertheless, regular readers of this blog (hello both of you) will be reassured that I intend to spend less time goading the charity sector and more time, well, goading other people.

Thanks for reading.

Idle Hands

On August 27th, the minister for International Trade, Greg Hands MP, tweeted an important update about foreign investment in the UK:

One US company emails “The minister was spot-on with his comments on Brexit & we’ve decided to stay in the UK based on guidance provided.”

It’s clearly a good thing if Brexit doesn’t result in the economic calamity that some have predicted, but by itself, Mr Hands’ tweet doesn’t advance the debate. To judge whether this is good news, we need to know how big a company this is, how likely they were to leave, and what investment and jobs they might bring to the apocalyptic wasteland that is the UK’s future. In short, we need to know who they are. If the Government wants to use decisions made by  private companies for the purposes of propaganda, we need to be able to scrutinise who they’re talking about.

I asked Mr Hands who the company was on Twitter but he ignored me, so I made an FOI request to his Department for the name of the company and all of the information contained in the email. A few weeks later came their reply, a terse response that barely explained the nature of the exemption they were using (Section 43, which prevents disclosures that cause commercial prejudice). Of the public interest, they had this to say:

in this case it is also important that Government protects commercially sensitive information to allow this particular business to continue to operate in anonymity to limit the exposure of its business strategy; the disclosure of which may be advantageous to competitors operating in the same sector

I decided to ask for an internal review. The department could maintain their position by disclosing the email but removing the name, and to be honest, I was still working on the assumption that Hands might have made the whole thing up. The Department for International Trade has a difficult relationship with the truth – only this week, the Secretary of State Liam Fox appeared on television to deny sending a tweet despite the fact that the self-same tweet was being displayed on a massive screen behind him, while in a previous job, Hands tweeted about signing off an FOI request about the number of FOI requests his department had received, despite the fact that the department published the numbers.

My review request covered three areas – I had requested all of the information in the email so the metadata for the email could still be disclosed, the public interest had not been assessed properly (the Brexit debate being possibly the most important issue facing the UK in my lifetime), and finally, I said that the Department should at least contact the company to ask their consent.

The Department’s reply was in turn bland – Hands’ meeting with the company was in private, and they had made no public announcement – and meaningless. They dealt with the metadata issue with this sentence, which I still do not understand: “With reference to your request for metadata, this is nullified by the fact that we have not released any information to you for which we would be required to provide those details.

And so off to the Commissioner’s Office I went. After a few months, the ICO achieved a result. It turned out that the Department had never consulted the company in question, despite the fact that I specifically mentioned this in my internal review request. The ICO told them that they ought to have done this, so they did. Despite their claim in their original reply that the organisation needed anonymity to limit the exposure of their business strategy, the company clearly didn’t feel the same way, so I can tell you that the company is the medical imaging firm PACS Health, and the email came from their Chief Operating Officer (Mr Hands quoted it entirely accurately).

The Department’s approach does not bode well, especially given the turbulent times the UK faces – both outside and within. Secrecy is best, they seem to think. Openness and scrutiny is to be avoided, and has no benefit. Despite having two opportunities to do it (and being prompted by me), those handling my request didn’t think it was worth contacting the company to see what they think. The assumption is that the best course of action is to keep things behind closed doors. Of course, this is a somewhat charitable characterisation of their approach, because it’s entirely possible that the Department didn’t want to contact the company in case they said yes. I mean no disrespect to the fine folk of PACS Health, but they’re not exactly Nissan. How many small companies will have to adopt the same approach to make up for the economic opportunities the UK is about to lose?

The ICO’s attitude wasn’t encouraging either. Admittedly, it was only by complaining to them that I got the information, but the Senior Case Officer wrote to me saying that because of this, they proposed “to informally and proportionately close this matter” without issuing a decision notice. I can see the merit in this sometimes but here, the ICO has an opportunity to send out a message to all public authorities – when claiming commercial prejudice to third parties and private companies, it’s vital to consult them. Doing so in my case would have avoided an internal review and a complaint to the ICO, and they had to do it in the end anyway. By trying to dodge a decision notice, the chance to send this message is lost.

The problem is that unless I withdraw my complaint, the ICO’s main option to refuse to make a decision is to say that my complaint is frivolous or vexatious, and they clearly didn’t think it was. They don’t even have the guts to be transparent about this and say ‘please withdraw your complaint so we can close the case and hit our targets‘ – the Commissioner loftily proposes to close the matter, and I am invited to give the case officer a ring if I want to discuss it.

I asked if they were refusing to issue a decision notice, underlining the point that my case is a good example of the importance of consultation, and I received a somewhat testy reply, telling me that it was clearly not proportionate for the ICO to do so given that I was going to receive the information, and the Department had been told to consult in future. The problem with this argument is that this will only benefit the Department itself, whereas a Decision Notice will be seen by other public authorities and (more importantly) FOI applicants. And separately, there is also some benefit to the Department’s shoddy approach being ventilated. They might be less likely to do it again if it’s a known fact that they did it here.

As he realised that I would object to having the case closed informally, the Case Officer confirmed that a decision notice would nevertheless be issued, although he could not resist a slightly petulant parting shot: “Please note that the process of issuing such a notice can be a lengthy one (i.e. months not weeks)“. I’m not sure why I should be chastened by a reminder of the ICO’s ponderous decision-making processes – indeed, if they were better at making and signing off decisions instead of constantly looking for excuses to close cases, it probably wouldn’t take months anyway.

On both sides, transparency isn’t valued. The Department for International Trade want to keep everything way from scrutiny; the ICO just wants to close cases without going through the admin of writing a decision notice, despite the benefit that a wider dissemination of the case might have. Whatever you think about the future, we need an FOI system that is better hands than this.

Catch the Pidgeon

Even before the fundraising sector met its Data Protection nemesis in December, with two charities cruelly hung out on the rack, forbidden ever to raise funds again (CORRECTION: given two of the smallest fines in Data Protection history and not forbidden from doing anything), various blogs, and tweets showed that anguished tin-rattlers were confused about what they were accused of.

A classic of the genre was published just over a week ago by Third Sector, penned by Stephen Pidgeon, a “consultant and teacher” (one assumes modesty prevented the publication from mentioning that until recently he chaired the Institute of Fundraising’s Standards Committee, responsible for the until-recently legally incorrect Code of Fundraising Practice). Pidgeon made a series of assertions in his article, and the most important of them is wrong.

Pidgeon describes profiling as a serendipitous activity – a fundraiser innocently planning some door-drops (not a hint of pestering spam in this charming scenario, nor any resort to a data-mining outfit like Prospecting for Gold) happens to notice that a donor has sold a business, and so decides to add his details to an existing campaign. The scheme is ruined by the ICO who says: “That’s not allowed – it’s against the Data Protection Act without express permission“. As Pidgeon points out, the DPA is much vaguer than that. If the Commissioner had indeed said this, it would be nonsense. The problem is, they didn’t.

Both charity notices set out the ICO’s position on charity profiling – it cannot be secret. The same is true for data sharing and appending new data to records that the subject didn’t provide. Neither notice finds profiling without consent to be a breach. Admittedly, of the Data Protection only offers one other option to justify profiling in these circumstances (legitimate interests), but either Pidgeon doesn’t know what the notice says, or he is deliberately misleading his audience. The word ‘permission’ does not appear in either notice, and the word ‘consent’ isn’t mentioned either.

Pidgeon also asserts that wealth profiling is not confined to charities:

This issue is not confined to charities. Yet, in all the 100-plus ICO adjudications in 2016, I could not find a single commercial firm censured for wealth screening.

To be pedantic, they’re not unenforceable ‘adjudications’, they’re formal legal notices, and if you add up all of the DP and PECR monetary penalty and enforcement notices in 2016, you don’t get to 100. He might be including the undertakings, which could be compared to the blancmange adjudications that charities have grown used to, but they’re irrelevant in a conversation about enforcement. The more important point is that like others, including the fundraising apologist academic Ian McQuillin and the researcher Matt Ide, Pidgeon claims that everyone does wealth screening but only the charities are getting punished for it. The Daily Mail hasn’t exposed Marks and Spencers or Greggs for wealth screening – possibly because they’re good at keeping it secret, but a more likely explanation is that they don’t do it. Until someone in the charity sector shows evidence of another organisation doing secret profiling, it’s just a distraction from the fact that – as Pidgeon claims – most of the charity sector have been doing it unlawfully for years.

Many in the sector also seem persuaded that the ICO action is a weird anti-charity vendetta. MacQuillin’s contributions to the Critical Fundraising Blog pondered the mystifying question of why the data protection regulator has taken action when household name organisations have been exposed for breaching data protection. The ICO takes action for three reasons – an organisation reports itself for something, ICO gets lots of complaints about something, or something makes a big splash in the press. There were thousands of complaints about charity fundraising, but all went to the toothless Fundraising Standards Board, who hardly ever passed them on to ICO. So it was the Daily Mail’s headlines that did the trick – the heartbreaking story of Olive Cooke but more importantly for the ICO’s purposes, the flamboyantly unlawful way in which charities treated Samuel Rae, trading his data relentlessly with anyone who wanted it.

In pursuing his false claim about consent, Pidgeon derisively summarised what charities might have to say to prospective donors: “We want to find out how rich you are; tick here to agree”! As a first draft, this has some merit, but a charity involved in wealth screening should also add ‘We want to know whether you are worth more alive or dead‘. The consent claim is a red herring, but perhaps unwittingly, Pidgeon has hit on the real problem for fundraisers: daylight. The foundation of Data Protection is fairness, and the only way to achieve it, regardless of whether consent is part of the mix, is to tell the subject the purposes for which their data will be used. Stretching the law as far as they can, the ICO has invented the concept of ‘reasonable expectations’. Reasonable expectations doesn’t appear in the Data Protection Act, but the ICO’s idea is that if you are only doing something that the person would expect, you don’t have to spell it out. One might take issue with this because it’s not in the Act, but it’s a sensible idea. The ICO’s emphasis has always been on being transparent over unexpected or objectionable processing.

Tesco’s Clubcard scheme is a useful example. Clubcard is a loyalty scheme, clearly based on profiling. The user knows that when they swipe their card, their purchases are analysed so that tailored offers and vouchers can be provided. Needless to say, Tesco also use the data for their sales and marketing strategy. If you look at the T&Cs for the Clubcard scheme, you will not find references to data sharing with third parties for wealth screening. They don’t need to – they can analyse your purchases instead. The user knows that profiling is inherent to the scheme, and they are not required to participate when shopping at Tesco. I have a Clubcard because I understand the system and I don’t believe that Tesco flogs my data. The profiling is the basis on which the whole thing operates. I have a choice about whether to shop at Tesco, and separately, whether to have a Clubcard when I do.

On the other hand, the RSPCA profiled seven million donors after they donated; presumably the lion’s share of all people who donated to the charity. The RSPCA did not tell people that this was the purpose for which their data will be used, and nobody outside the charity sector was aware of what was happening. Unlike Clubcard, donors could not participate without being screened and analysed by the charity. I have used the wealth-screening example on many of my training courses. The reaction is always surprise, and often revulsion.  Nobody ever leaps to the charity’s defence because secret profiling is a dodgy way to do business.

Pidgeon’s squeamishness about describing the process – the daft example of the story in the newspaper, his emphasis on data being gathered from the public domain – suggests that fundraisers are more ambivalent about their methods than they might like to admit. The existence of five facts in five separate publicly accessible places is different to the combination of those facts in one place, gathered with the intention of tailored marketing. A profile is greater than the sum of its parts, and people should be told that it exists. Pidgeon isn’t alone in his approach – Chris Carnie, the founder of ‘prospect research’ company Factary erroneously characterised myself and others as saying that using public domain data is “an intrusion into an individual’s privacy. That searching for a named individual in Companies House fundamentally affects the rights of that person“. All I said was that such research should be transparent, but this isn’t news that Carnie and his colleagues find palatable. Ide’s company goes as far as to assess the ‘ethical credentials‘ of a donor, which sounds a world away from noticing a story in a paper.

The Daily Mail is a revolting newspaper – the worst combination of small-minded, petty conservatism and curtain-twitching prurience. It is a matter of ongoing annoyance to me that the Mail is one of the very few national news outlets that covers Data Protection issues with any enthusiasm. I really wish the Guardian or the Times had exposed the ghastly exploitation of vulnerable people like Samuel Rae, or their hunger for information about possible donors. I wish Dispatches’ fine work on the shameful state of some fundraising call centres had got more attention. Nevertheless, none of this is the Mail’s fault, and fundraisers’ relentless blame-shifting needs to be called out for the cant that it is. Everyone knows whose fault this is.

The charity and fundraising sector isn’t in a mess over data protection because of the Daily Mail, and it isn’t there because of the Information Commissioner. This problem is the fault of some fundraisers and their agents not obeying the law, and trustees who didn’t ask them enough questions. MacQuillin claims that almost everything that has happened to the fundraising sector over the past two years is because of ‘fake news‘; Olive Cooke’s death wasn’t, her family says, the result of the spam tsunami that charities subjected her to. For one thing, this claim disgracefully ignores Samuel Rae, whose story would have caused the same interest even if it wasn’t the sequel to Olive Cooke. Moreover, it is itself fake news. If some of Pidgeon and MacQuillin’s compadres had done their job with a greater interest in the law, they wouldn’t be here now. This is the second or third time I have written this blog. With 11 more possible fines, and fundraisers still in denial about what they have done, I’ll probably have to write it again before long.

The Red Menace

Just before New Year, the pro-Brexit, anti-single market pressure group Change Britain published a report about the possible savings that could accrue to the UK if we cut all ties with the EU. Keen observers of current politics will be astonished to learn that the amount is in the multiple billions. One of the top savings is from repealing the Data Protection Act 1998, which Change Britain claims costs the economy a whopping £1,058,830,000, while (if I am reading the table right), giving a benefit of precisely nothing. It’s a prime example of ‘harmful EU red tape‘ that Change Britain is very much against.

Curiously, the report doesn’t include any mention the General Data Protection Regulation, despite the fact that the Government announced several months before its publication that GDPR will apply in the UK, reflecting the reality that it will come into force before we leave. The report does not hint at any cost in repealing the DPA and replacing it with something else, or the wasted effort currently being expended by organisations large and small in preparing for GDPR, all of which they want to cancel out. The economic benefit of being able to share data across EU borders isn’t priced in at all, even if we accept the £1 billion cost at face value. Inevitably, Change Britain’s report has the mindset of an Oscar Wilde cynic, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Although the DPA is clunky and badly enforced, the benefits of saying that personal data should be obtained fairly, used transparently, kept in good order and processed securely are enormous.

I emailed Change Britain just before New Year asking the questions outlined below. I would like to express my gratitude to the Change Britain staff member who took the time to give me two courteous replies when many people were probably on holiday or hung-over.

Can you confirm that Change Britain believes that the GDPR should not be implemented, as well as advocating the repeal of the Data Protection Act? Can I ask what analysis you have done into the effects of repealing DP, in terms of its effects on the security and quality of personal data, and the rights of UK citizens to know how their data is used, and to get access to it on request?
Can you also provide me with any proposals Change Britain have for replacing the Data Protection Act / GDPR, or is the idea to remove any controls or protections on the way personal data is used in the UK post-Brexit?
Finally, can you give me any analysis on the effect of repealing the DPA / not implementing GDPR on the ability of UK companies to exchange personal data with EU countries, and how this would affect the UK’s adequacy for Data Protection purposes? As I am sure you already know, not having adequate data protection provisions would make it virtually impossible for EU and UK companies to do business with each other, because no personal data could be shared outside the EU.

In their reply, Change Britain didn’t explain why they hadn’t mentioned GDPR in the first place, but noted that the Coalition Government said in 2013 that the GDPR could ‘impose unnecessary additional costs on current businesses‘, a comment made on a version of the GDPR which is quite different to the one we’re actually getting. The emphasis was on ensuring that “expensive red tape is cut so that the burden on business is reduced“.

They didn’t really answer the questions, but the thrust of their preferred approach seemed to come here: “We believe that it is possible to secure a new relationship that allows ongoing data sharing between the UK and the EU and gives UK policy makers an opportunity to deal with the issues they have identified with EU laws and – in so doing – reduce the burden of red tape on British businesses“. They didn’t mention the fact that the current government has announced that the GDPR will apply or what the implications of that might be for their proposal. Crucially, while they clearly wanted to “reduce the burdens”, they did not explain to me what these burdens were.

It seemed to me that Change Britain were describing the Mother of Worst Case Scenarios: repeal of the DPA with a UK only replacement instead of adopting the GDPR, some kind of negotiated deal over EU data sharing with all the fragility that entails in the world of Max Schrems, a situation which could well mean UK businesses with EU customers separately adopting GDPR for their customers. Of course, there are many who think that an adequacy finding for the UK post-Brexit is going to hard to achieve, and so some kind of UK Privacy Shield arrangement (AKA Daragh O Brien‘s Privacy Brolly) is the likely outcome. But I’m not aware of anyone in the DP world who thinks this is a good idea – it’s just what we might end up with.

I emailed them again. I asked whether they were proposing what I thought they were proposing (making it sound as complicated and horrendous as I did just now). I wondered whether they had a list of the specific burdens that they objected to. I also asked if they had an analysis of the costs of reversing the current position on GDPR, given all the time and money that is currently going into preparing for it precisely because the government has said that we should. Finally, I asked whether a Privacy Shield arrangement was should be the aim, given the fiery death of Safe Harbor and the fact that the prognosis for Privacy Shield is somewhat toasty (to paraphrase).

They were kind enough to reply again, but with a striking lack of detail. “Brexit is an opportunity to repeal laws that don’t work and introduce better versions” they told me. They did not dispute my interpretation of what they want, which is astonishing. They are “aware of the legitimate issues that you have raised, however we also believe that the concerns raised about the impact of the EU’s data protection regime on small businesses should also be given equal weight when the Government considers the opportunities that come from Brexit”. They didn’t explain how reversing current government policy and forcing UK businesses to operate at least two different DP systems, no matter how large or small they might be was in the interests of anyone, and especially, how this would save a billion pounds. There is no reason why a small business wouldn’t be one of the enterprises running Change Britain’s UK DP at home, and the GDPR abroad, notwithstanding the *increase* in red tape that their proposal would involve. Change Britain want two laws in place of one, after all.

Despite claiming that Data Protection doesn’t work, Change Britain have not carried out any analysis on the burdens associated with it to underpin their demand that it should be abolished. They have not calculated the cost of abolishing it and replacing it with something else – indeed, I would go as far as to say that they showed no evidence of having thought about it. They could only point me to the previous government’s (now outdated) view of GDPR, and reports produced by the British Chambers of Commerce in 2005 and 2010. It seems to be a case of UK good, EU bad, even as the GDPR is being scrutinised around the world as a model to emulate, or at least react to.

Change Britain’s abolition of the DPA and the abandonment of the GDPR is an economically illiterate idea on a par with Vote Leave’s NHS Bus Promise. It makes no sense except as a sound-bite in a press release designed solely for headlines and incapable of surviving serious analysis. Change Britain’s idea is the opposite of what the Government has told UK businesses to prepare for. It is a recipe for confusion and uncertainty. It is utterly irresponsible.

Whatever you think of Brexit, it has wiped the future clean. Anyone who confidently predicts what the UK will look like in 2020 or 2025 is a fool or a liar. I think it will be a disaster, but other opinions are equally valid. The UK Government’s confirmation that GDPR will apply is a small strand of certainty. Even though the Secretary of State left the door open for change at some stage (which she has every right to do), we know what’s coming next for Data Protection, despite Brexit. In their antipathy towards the EU and all its works, Change Britain want to murder even this tiny certainty. They have no original thoughts on why they think it’s a good idea beyond money-saving that they cannot possibly stand up. They cannot offer any hint of what they want to replace DPA / GDPR with, except that it must be homegrown. It cannot be European in origin. I very much hope that their proposal gets the shortest shrift that the DCMS has in stock.

Make no mistake, compliance with GDPR will be difficult for some, but I suspect that many of the organisations most keen to decry the GDPR would struggle equally to comply with the 1984 Data Protection Act, produced by the Thatcher Government, which even now has parallels with both our current DP Act and the GDPR. The GDPR is clearer, less technical and more understandable than the DPA. It is in most ways an improvement. Change Britain’s proposal is vandalism, and we should wash it away.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I voted Remain, I wholly accept that the UK is going to leave the EU as a result of the referendum, I am more convinced than I was before that it is a stupid idea, and in a free country, you should defend my right to say so.