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.

Small change

Some senior figures in the charity sector have sought to deal with the Information Commissioner’s recent enforcement against the RSPCA and the British Heart Foundation by suggesting that the ICO’s action is disproportionate and unfair. The fundraiser sorry, academic, Ian MacQuillin has written two blogs which touch on the theme, while a few days ago, Robert Meadowcroft, the Chief Executive of Muscular Dystrophy UK tweeted:

If the is impartial regulator it will investigate practices of and not simply pursue charities

As 2016 is now disappearing over the horizon, I thought it was worth testing the hypothesis that the ICO is taking disproportionate action against charities, and the fines and other enforcement against charities are unrepresentative. TL:DR – it’s complete nonsense.

In 2016, the ICO issued 34 civil monetary penalties – 11 under the Data Protection Act, and 23 under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). There are a number of different ways of looking at the figures, and none of them show any evidence of disproportionality.

1) Charity CMPs as a proportion of the total in 2016

Of the 34 penalties, 2 were against charities, so 6% of the ICO’s CMPs in 2016 were against charities.

2) Amount charities were fined, as a proportion of the total in 2016

The CMP total was £3,225,500. The total of CMPs issued against charities was £43,000. This is 1.3% of the total.

3) Proportion of Data Protection CMPs issued to charities in 2016

If you look only at the CMPs issued under Data Protection, the charity proportion is not insignificant – there were 11 DP CMPs, so the 2 charity CMPs are 18% of the total – the same as the police, 1 more than councils, but less than the private sector or the NHS (3 each). However, this is the only comparison where charities feature significantly, and they are not the dominant sector. The next two comparisons are also instructive.

4) Proportion of PECR CMPs issued to charities in 2016

None. This is despite widespread breaches of PECR by charities, including phoning donors who are on TPS and sending texts and emails without consent (for example, the vast majority of mobile numbers gathered via charity posters in 2016 were obtained in breach of PECR).

5) Proportion of CMPs issued for marketing related activities in 2o16

There were 21 PECR CMPs related to marketing, and 2 DP CMPs related to marketing, making 23 marketing CMPs in all. 2 were against charities, which is 9.5% of the total. Given the big charities’ disastrous approach to marketing, this relatively small number is astonishing.

6) Level of CMPs in 2016

The average DP CMP was £108,500; the average charity DP CMP was £21,500.

The average PECR CMP was £84,666.75; there were no charity PECR CMPs.

The highest DP CMP was £400,000; the highest charity DP CMP was £25,000.

7) Other enforcement in 2016

There were 22 enforcement notices issued by the ICO in 2016, 8 under DP and 14 under PECR. 1 of the 8 DP enforcement notices was against a charity, which is 4.5% of the total, or 12.5% of the total DP enforcement notices. Either way, it is a small percentage of the total. Again, if you count the number of marketing related enforcement notices, there were 15, of which 1 was against a charity. This is 6.6% of the total.

8) CMPs since 2010

There have been 69 DP CMPs since 2010 that I can find (they drop off the ICO’s website after a few years); 4 were issued against registered charities, which is 5.8% of the total. The average DP CMP was £114, 163, whereas the average charity was £78,250. It is worth noting that these figures are slightly skewed by the £200,000 penalty against the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is a registered charity but receives most of its funding from the NHS.

The CMP against the British Heart Foundation was the 8th lowest CMP overall, while the CMP against the RSPCA was the 9th lowest. The only organisations to receive lower penalties than the charities were small businesses, unincorporated associations, and a bankrupt lawyer.

There have been 47 PECR CMPs that I can find since 2012; none have been issued on charities, which is 0% of the total.


These figures will likely be different in 2017. The ICO has signalled that more DP enforcement against charities is coming, and so the proportion of DP penalties may rise when the totals are in, but that depends on a variety of different factors including the number of other penalties and the ICO’s general approach. However, when you look at the facts for 2016, MacQuillin and Meadowcroft are wrong. Despite years of ignoring the Data Protection and PECR requirements in favour of a flawed, fundraiser-driven approach, the ICO has not taken disproportionate action against the charities. The action taken is a small percentage of the overall total. Special pleading and blame-shifting will not help the sector. Compliance with the law will.

Fair Cop

The bedrock of Data Protection is fairness. You cannot gain consent without fairness. Your interests are not legitimate interests if they are secret interests. Unless you have an exemption or you claim that telling the person represents disproportionate effort (i.e. the effort of telling outweighs the actual impact), you have to tell the person whose data you are using the purposes for which their data will be used, and any other information necessary to make the processing fair.

The ICO’s Privacy Notices Code of Practice is not ambiguous, nor was its predecessor. It is impossible to read the ICO’s published guidance on fair processing without taking away the key message, consistently repeated for more than a decade: if something is surprising or objectionable, especially if it involves some kind of impact or sharing outside the organisation, it should be spelt out. New-ish Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham seems to have chosen to reverse the ICO’s previously timid, unimaginative approach to the first principle with a pair of civil monetary penalties against charities. We have one each for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the British Heart Foundation, with the promise of more to come. You might say it was unfortunate that charities are first in line rather than, say, credit reference agencies or list brokers (to be a touch tautological). It was the charity sector’s misfortune to fall under the Daily Mail’s Basilisk gaze, and they have to accept that we are where we are.

To issue a civil monetary penalty, there are three hurdles for the ICO to clear. Firstly, there must be a serious breach. Both charities used commercial companies to profile thousands (and in one case, millions) of donors, buying up data from publicly available sources* to assess their wealth and resources, they shared data with other charities whose identity they did not know via a commercial company, and in the case of the RSPCA, they bought contact details to fill in data that donors had provided. The average donor did not have any idea that this was happening. I can see there’s a problem that when everyone in the charity sector knows that wealth screening goes on, it seems normal. But I’ve been using it as an example on my training courses ever since the Mail revealed it, and bear in mind that these are often seasoned data protection professionals who know about data sharing and disclosure, attendees are invariably shocked and some cases revolted by what I tell them.

There is no doubt in my mind that this processing needed to be spelt out, and there is no doubt from the notices that it was not. Carefully selected third parties or partners has been a stupid lie in marketing for years, but not even knowing where the data goes is much worse than the usual flogging it to all comers. At least the list broker knows who he’s flogging it to, even though the only careful selection is the ability to pay.

The second hurdle is the need to show that the breach is likely to cause damage or distress to the affected data subjects. It’s been known for quite some time that the ICO was planning to take enforcement action over the Mail stories, and the gossip I heard from charities was that fines were likely. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t convinced. The Information Commissioner lost a Data Protection Tribunal appeal from Scottish Borders Council because they bungled the damage / distress element of a £250000 CMP over pension records found in recycling bins. ICO made a flawed claim that the loss of paper pension records was likely to result in identity theft, but Borders had an expert witness who could argue convincingly that this was not true. The link between the breach (the absence of a contract with the company processing the data) and the damage was broken, and the ICO lost.

But this case is different. The ICO does not need to make a link between an incident and a breach, because they are bound up together here. Both notices show that the ICO has given considerable thought to the distress angle. There is no question that the charities breached the first principle, and their only hope for an appeal is to convince the Tribunal that people would not be caused substantial distress by secret profiling and data sharing after an act of generosity. This is not science, and all I can say is that I am persuaded. But for an appeal to be successful, the charities will need to persuade a Tribunal with strong experience and knowledge of DP and PECR from the numerous (and almost exclusively doomed) marketing appeals.

The third element requires the breach to be deliberate or a situation where the charities ought reasonably to have known about the breach. As I have already said, the ICO’s position on fair processing is well known in my sector and available to anyone who can type the ICO’s web address. I think it’s possible that the charities didn’t know what they were doing was a breach, but in my opinion, this is because the Institute of Fundraising and the Fundraising Standards Board effectively acted as a firewall between charities and reality. The advice (often inaccurate and out of date) came from the IoF, and complaints about charities went to the FRSB and no further. When your code of practice is written by the people who earn their living from fundraising and most in your sector are doing the same thing as you are, it’s not hard to fool yourself into thinking it’s OK. But ‘everybody does it’ will cut no ice with the Tribunal. The RSPCA and the BHF are not tiny charities flailing in the dark – they are massive, multi-million pound operations with vastly greater resources than many of my clients.

Daniel Fluskey, head of Policy for the Institute of Fundraising, whose apparent lack of experience or qualifications in Data Protection does not prevent him from writing inaccurate articles for the charity sector on GDPR, has already weighed in, saying that the ICO should be providing the specific wording that charities require: “Charities need more detail on the ICO’s view of what lawful practice looks like: what form of words would have passed the test?” The Information Commissioner is the regulator for every organisation, of every size and shape, that processes personal data. If they start writing tailored wording for charities, they will have to do it for everyone else as well. It is a ridiculous demand. I think the ICO should move on to the data pools, wealth screeners and list brokers, but if she could find the time to issue an enforcement notice on the Institute of Fundraising, forbidding them ever to speak or write on Data Protection matters again, the third sector would have a fighting chance of complying.

Besides, how hard is it to find compliant wording? Nobody – especially not the trade association for fundraisers – should be allowed to present this as a byzantine and complex task. The individual doesn’t need to know what software you’re using, or whether cookies are involved. They need to understand the purpose – what are you collecting, what are you going to do with it, who are you going to give it to? This should be presented without euphemism or waffle, but it’s when you strip out the legalistic nonsense, you see the problem. It isn’t that the poor charities were labouring under the burden of complex data protection rules. They could not comply with the Data Protection Act because what they were doing (and in RSPCA’s case, are apparently still doing) is so unattractive:

  • We will share your details with unspecified charities via a commercial company. We don’t know who they are.
  • We will buy your phone number, postal or email address from a commercial company if you have not given it to us.
  • We will use commercial companies to compile a profile of your wealth and property to work out whether to ask you for further donations. If you are likely to be worth a lot when you die, we will use this information to ask you for a bequest.

When Reactiv Media appealed their PECR penalty, the Tribunal rejected their appeal and increased the penalty. Like a lot of the spammers, they put themselves into administration to avoid paying up, but this option is not available to household name charities. If either the RSPCA or BHF appeal, they are dragging themselves deeper into the mud, and very possibly spending thousands more of donors’ money to do so. If they say that what they did wasn’t a breach, or that they couldn’t have been expected to know that it was, their officers, advice and business model will be scrutinised to a doubtlessly painful extent. The claims management company Quigley and Carter found themselves described as “feckless” and “most unimpressive” in the course of being filleted during a recent failed appeal. Do charities really want that? Even if they decide to roll the dice solely on distress, does either charity really want to acknowledge a serious breach that they knew or ought to have know about in the hope of getting the fine overturned on a technicality? Do they want ICO to call donors as witnesses?

The business model of pressure selling, TPS-busting, heavy texting, data sharing and donor-swapping adopted by some of the UK’s most celebrated charities resembles nothing so much as the activities of the claims management, PPI spammers (i.e. the scum of the earth). For all the noise and bluster on Twitter and in the charity press this week, there is an uncomfortable truth that has to be faced. The hated Daily Mail unearthed it, and the ICO has rightly acted on it. Some big charities have run an end-justifies-the-means approach to marketing and they have got away with it for a decade. Fundraisers ruled the roost, and compliance has been sidelined or ignored. Given how much money the RSPCA and the BHF have raised from fundamentally unlawful practices, they should pull back and rethink how they get donations in the future. They should ignore the Institute of Fundraising’s every word on Data Protection and PECR, and like every other charity, concentrate on reading and applying the ICO’s Code on Privacy Notices and guidance on Direct Marketing.

And right now, if there is a fundraiser sitting with the two CMP notices working out how to at the same time devise a method to raise loads of cash for their cause while complying with Data Protection and PECR, I hope they wipe the floor with everyone else.

*citation needed

Virgin Berth

If there could be anything worse than the provenance and target of a Wallasey brick spawning an industry of conspiracy theorists, then it’s probably the Burning Question of whether Virgin Trains East Coast’s release of CCTV images of Jeremy Corbyn spurning unoccupied seats to enjoy the proletarian solidarity of the vestibule floor breached Data Protection laws. If I get through today without reading The Canary’s take on the matter, I will be a happy man.

Of course, the only sensible answer to the question is “It doesn’t matter“. But let’s ignore that obvious fact in favour of the following.

First, if Virgin Trains released unpixelated images of other passengers, this would be a breach of the first Data Protection principle on the basis that it would be unfair. There is no legitimate interest in doing so, and it is plainly unfair to publish images of ordinary passengers minding their own business. There is NO CHANCE ON EARTH than the Information Commissioner will take any action against Virgin for this as there is no harm to the passengers concerned, and harm is a vital threshold for any enforcement action. Individual passengers could sue, but again, they would have to demonstrate at least distress. I went from London to Edinburgh on Virgin East Coast once so I have some sympathy with this argument.

Of course, nobody would give a toss about this if it were not for the perceived slight to JC, so let’s get to that.

The first Data Protection principle requires that personal data should be processed fairly, lawfully and according to a set of conditions. Virgin’s disclosure must clear all three hurdles.

Fair – in the general sense of the word, I believe that the processing of Corbyn’s data was fair. Presumably without the company’s consent, Corbyn filmed a publicity stunt about the state of their trains. Even if the content was true, I believe Corbyn opened the door for Virgin to reply about the state of the train that Corbyn was on. Fairness does have a separate, specific meaning, which requires the organisation to tell the Data Subject who they are, what purposes the data is being used for, and anything else necessary to make the processing fair.

I can’t find the privacy notice for Virgin Trains East (if it’s not on the trains, that’s a breach), but Virgin Trains West Coast has a detailed policy on its website that includes improving customer service, monitoring operational incidents and verifying claims. If something similar is on the East Coast trains, I don’t think Corbyn has much room for complaint. I think that responding to an unauthorised publicity stunt on one of their trains is probably compatible with verifying claims and monitoring operational incidents. And besides, the Information Commissioner’s Office has invented and long tolerated a notion of ‘reasonable expectations’ – that you can do anything with personal data that the person would reasonably expect you to do. If Corbyn didn’t expect Virgin to look at their CCTV to verify his claim that the train was ‘ram-packed‘ (or even ‘rammed’ or ‘jam-packed’), he’s an idiot.

There is the nugget of an issue here – the public perception of CCTV is that it is used solely as a means of detecting and investigating crime. It isn’t – it’s used for a variety of civil, disciplinary and publicity purposes and there’s nothing in the Data Protection Act to prevent this. However, companies like the West and East Virgins tend to stress security and crime over all things when dealing with CCTV, and this creates an expectation of its own. Everything depends on the information available on the train that JC travelled on.

There is one exemption that might come to Virgin’s aid – Section 32 renders all of the First Principle void (and most of the others) if a disclosure is made for ‘journalistic purposes’ and the public interest in publication is incompatible with compliance with the principles. The language is important – one does not need to be a journalist, only to be processing for the purposes of journalism. This opens the door to widespread and enthusiastic flouting of DPA by all sorts of corporate interests, but I find it hard to dismiss the possibility altogether.

Lawful – I believe that the disclosure was lawful. A train is not a private place (except in the toilets and this probably not the time for me to raise the urban myth about CCTV in train toilets), and Corbyn’s personal data in this context is not confidential or private. I can see no other law that disclosing this data would breach, so I think they’re in the clear.

Condition – Schedule 6(2) of the Data Protection Act states that data can be processed (in this context, disclosed) if it is necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest, as long as the processing does not prejudice the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of the subject. Corbin made a claim about the conditions he found on a particular train – I believe that Virgin unquestionably have a legitimate interest in disclosing Corbyn’s personal data in order to comment on the accuracy of his claim. If Virgin released images of Corbyn unprompted, legitimate interests are out of the window. But Corbyn started the ball rolling, and I cannot see how the use of overt CCTV for this purpose prejudices his interests. Of course, if the images were used in a misleading way, again, legitimate interests is dead, but frankly, that’s a much bigger problem.

Other conditions might be engaged but unless Virgin have actively defamed Corbyn by photoshopping them to look like the train had seats when it didn’t (which is what I presume The Canary’s take is), I believe that the use of images was adequate, relevant, and not excessive (principle 3), and accurate (principle 4). One might question how long the images have been retained for (principle 5), but there is no statutory time period – Virgin simply have to justify that the retention period matches the purposes outlined under the first principle.

At its absolute worst, the release of Corbyn’s images might be unfair if the privacy notices on the train do not reasonably envisage the possibility of something like this happening. If Mr Corbyn was damaged in some way by this, the seriousness of the breach is increased, but not by much. It would be unlawful, but I see no public interest in taking action. Politics is a dirty business. Corbyn’s party breaches Data Protection all the time, so if he wants to take this up, he should do some digging in his own backyard.

And reserve a bloody seat next time.

UPDATE (24/8/16): The Information Commissioner has stated that they are “making enquiries” into Virgin’s disclosure of the CCTV images. The two possible enforcement routes available are a monetary penalty or an enforcement notice. The penalty requires the ICO to establish that there has been a serious breach of the Data Protection Act, likely to cause substantial damage or distress, and the data controller (Virgin Trains East Coast) either deliberately set out to breach the DPA, or knew (or ought to have known) that the breach would occur, and that the damage / distress would follow as a consequence. If you think that this incident meets that threshold, would you be interested in buying a used car?

The alternative is an enforcement notice. The enforcement notice can only apply if there is an ongoing breach that the data controller cannot or will not remedy. In other words, if Virgin promised never to disclose CCTV for publicity purposes again, it would be very difficult for the ICO to issue an enforcement notice. It would be disproportionate to take such significant action if it was clear that Virgin would not do the same thing again.

All this may be disappointing to those who wish to see Virgin, and its bearded figurehead, chastised for their assault on the integrity of JC, but this is not a serious breach. The NHS ignored opt-outs from the sharing of medical data for thousands of people over a prolonged period of time, and the worst that happened is that they were asked to sign an undertaking (an unenforceable public promise to behave better) at a time which best suited them in publicity terms. If you think that embarrassing Corbyn is worse than that, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The one good thing is that I don’t think the Labour Leader of Stockport Council, who moonlights as a Group Manager at the ICO, will end up dealing with the case. But who knows?