Data Protection Act 'insane' – give us privacy instead

The Committee has concluded that, "On balance, we firmly recommend that the Government reconsider its position and bring forward legislative proposals to clarify the protection that individuals can expect from unwarranted intrusion by anyone – not the press alone – into private lives". However, before additional privacy legislation, "there should be full and wide consultation."

Chairing the Select Committee, Mr Kaufmann said at the press conference to launch the report that they were much influenced by the case against Hello magazine brought by Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, where Mr Justice Lindsay said:

"So broad is the subject of privacy and such are the ramifications of any free standing law in the area that the subject is better left to Parliament... A judge should therefore be chary of doing that which is better done by Parliament. That Parliament has failed to grasped the nettle does not prove that it will not have to be grasped in the future".

However, Justice Lindsay added, "if Parliament does not step in then the Courts will be obliged to".

Mr Kaufmann stated that the objective of the Report was not "to get at the press". However, if Parliament failed to act, then the Courts – usually only accessible by the "rich and famous" – will establish a privacy law based on case law. This would not take into account a general privacy arrangement which would be accessible to all.

When challenged as to why the Committee had not taken account of the Data Protection Act, with its general principles of information privacy, an inexpensive complaints procedure and a regulator (the Information Commissioner), Mr Kaufmann said that the Act was not the proper vehicle to promote the privacy legislation.

He cited the case of a constituent who had his telephone was stolen. "When it was retrieved," said Kaufmann, "and when he asked for the numbers which had been used by the thief while the thief had possession of his telephone, he was told he could not be given that information because of the Data Protection Act". Mr Kaufmann added that this was evidence "of how stupid the Act is".

Dr. Chris Pounder of Masons, the firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, and Editor of Data Protection and Privacy Practice, attended the press conference. Dr. Pounder comments:

"I think the Committee's objectives could be realised by a more considered look at the balance achieved by the needs of journalism and individual privacy (established by Section 32 of the Act). This was cobbled together at great speed when the Act was passing through Parliament and a review would be timely.

"However, in relation to accessibility by Data Subjects and an inexpensive complaints procedure, even the current Act would produce many of the Committee's objectives. I am surprised that the Committee missed this."

Dr Pounder also commented that,

"Mr Kaufmann's views on the Act are unfathomable and erroneous – there are a number of mechanisms to resolve the issue raised by his constituent in favour of disclosure so long as there is a good reason for disclosure".