Data Protection Law Assignment Sample
1. Introduction
“Data Protection Law” (2018) is shaped to provide confidence and right to the organization to utilize personal information and details and protects against data misuse. The aim of the study is to examine the “Data Protection Act” by analyzing applicable prohibitions and identification of problems. “R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 1058” case grounded on the use of AFR technology. In this case, “Data Protection Impact Assessment” and “section 64 DPA 2018” are complied with to process the biometric information of persons. The study seeks to evaluate this case by evaluating the effectiveness of the act with applicable solutions.
2. Summary of the facts of the chosen subject matter
“R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 1058“
The South Wales Police holds a leading position in checking and inspecting trials on “Automated Facial Recognition” (AFR) technology. “NorthGate Public Services (UK) Ltd.” develops the AFR software “NeoFace Watch” and it operates in a crowded place to identify a person. This software further originates a “similarity score” and detects faces by isolating the individual through unique facial features. Between “May 2017 and April 2019”, the police utilize the function at different public events 50 times. The police further put messages on different social media platforms and bring data on websites with custody photographs[1]. The key purpose is to identify the persons with criminal suspicions, or missing people and escaping from custody. The utilization of AFR location matches the individual from two photographs and it was scanning 50faces every second.
The newly created faces and associated templates are deleted immediately or within 24 hours of scanning. In this case, the appellant was a civil campaigner “Edward Bridges” while the respondent was “Chief Constable of the South Wales Police“[2]. This appellant was engaged on two occasions and in his presence, the AFR location was utilized by the police at “busy shopping street in Cardiff” and “Defense Exhibition”[3]. Based on the scanning, two possible matches of the individual were identified by the software, and no action was taken. This occurred while the “Data Protection Act 1998” (‘DPA 1998’) was in effect, but the court took this case under “Data Protection Act 2018” (‘DPA 2018’).
The use of AFR technology falls under “Article 8(2)” of the “European Convention of Human Rights”. The appellant argued about the failure of “DPA 2018” and the biometric data falls to identify the actual persons[4]. This case is resolved and concludes the use of advanced and novel technology in police forces in the future. The lawful and fair processing is contained under the act and the police force shows “appropriate policy documents”. These are the main facts of the case and it evolves around the “DPA 2018” to come to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties.
3. Brief analysis of applicable provisions of the “General Protection Data Regulation” (2018) (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)
“General Data Protection Regulation” (GDPR) is a strict regulation under EU law and it effectively resolves different cases by protecting human rights and personal information. It further enhances an individual’s rights and control of their personal data and business activities. GDPR requires different mechanisms for the organizations to organize data and receive personal information about different activities. The key provisions of GDPR, which is effective from May 2018, include “Data Protection Officer” (DPO) and “Enhanced Rights of Individuals”. The “South Wales Police ” requires appointing a DPO to expand public authorities and engage the regular activities in a systematic way. It further enhances the large scale of processing in identifying an individual and data about several criminal offenses and convictions.[5] The recruitment of DPO is a significant applicable provision of GDPA to resolve different cases, like, “R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others”.
The DPO in involving several issues and police cases protects personal information about criminals and individuals by establishing a network and concerning data misuses. This position is “bound by confidentiality” and points the individual to different issues and their tasks with criminal activities. Mainly, DPA is a person who takes care in maintaining and protecting personal information by enhancing safety and human rights. This provision is significant and effective to control criminal activities through the following “DPA 2018”[6]. Another important provision of GDPR is “enhanced rights of individuals” to rectify inaccuracies and access to personal data. The automated process protects the citizens’ data and secures privacy while enhancing the right to profitability. “Data Profitability Right” and “Right to No Profiling” are the two main areas of the provision that enhances automated processing.
“GDPA 2018” critically focuses on securing an individual’s right and this provision is beneficial to controlling the scanning process of South Wales Policies. It allows different individuals to receive confidential and personal information through technical feasibility concerning a person’s performance on the economic situation, work, and health. The provisions are applicable for different cases and bring effective solutions to secure personal information and enhance individual rights under “GDPR 2018” of EU law[7]. In the case of South Wales Police Officers, these two provisions of GDPR are effective and take different results to get a satisfactory conclusion. The recruitment of DPO and the enhanced rights of individuals are crucial to maintaining and controlling criminal and illegal activities with securing an individual’s personal information.
4. Identification of the source of problems
The main problems of “R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others” arise from the lack of seriousness and ineffective use of AFR technology. The police force fails to maintain proper “Data Protection Impact Assessment” (“DPIA”) and it is a significant legal challenge of “AFR technology”[8]. This technology is applied by the police office limitlessly on discretion and changed the scenario of policing. The police officers use this technology to identify the actual person and movements in a crowded place. This technology is attached to CCTV cameras the police use it uncontrollably and it extracts facial biometrics. The High Court critically identifies the problem and its sources where Mr. Bridges challenges the unlawful intrusive AFR locator. The source of the problems comes from illegal limitations in the use of AFR technology by police professionals.
The case comes under “DPA 2018” as Mr. Bridge raises a complaint against the “South Wales Police Force” (“SWAP”). The appeal mainly concerns the use of AFR for regular and ongoing trials of SWAP through the involvement of surveillance cameras. The lack of sensitivity, concern about EU laws, and human rights are the main issues which also take another case “R(T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2015)“[9]. The activities behind facial image acquisition, use of databases of images, facial detection, face comparison, and matching raise the case which violates the “DPA 2018”. The use of AFR technology creates a profound consequence on “Data Protection Rights” and privacy issues. This is the main source of the problem which takes the case to the High Court to come to a remarkable and satisfactory solution.
5. Applicable solutions
The two key provisions of GDPR, “Data Protection Officer” (DPO) and “Enhanced Rights of Individuals” are significant solutions to the case. The final decision is made by the High Court by following “DPA 2018” to satisfy both the parties and improve the application of technology in facial recognition and identifying criminal activities. The engagement of the DPO is necessary to control different activities with enhancing human rights and protecting individual privacy. Limitations of fundamental rights with intrusive measurements are necessary through proper recognition of AFR technology[10]. The proper application of technologies and proper governance of SAWP is necessary to prevent these cases while enhancing human rights and securing the privacy of individuals.
The High Court further mentions the terms of “The Public Sector Equality Duty” (PSED) of the “Equality Act 2010” to prevent the violation of different laws[11]. The seriousness and proper use of advanced technology are necessary for an effective solution to this case with increasing the effectiveness of SAWP. The identification of the main issues and maintenance of different EU laws brings fruitful results in security, the safety, and privacy of individuals[12]. In this aspect, it is significant to state that the proper maintenance of human rights laws and engagement of DPO is a beneficial and applicable solution to protect and secure personal information and data.
6. Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that “R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 1058” is a significant case under “DPA 2018”. The cases arise from the lack of consciousness and illegal trial of AFR technology by SAWP which takes the case to the High Court. The study critically discusses the facts and background of the case around the main appellant Mr. Bridge who was involved in two consecutive sessions and detected by the sensors. “Data Protection Officer” (DPO) and “Enhanced Rights of Individuals” are the two key provisions of GDPR (2018) that are necessary for the improvement of acts and enhancing the legal rights of citizens. The main issues an applicable solution to this case is further identified to come to a satisfactory conclusion from the High Court. The study demonstrates the case by overviewing facts, identifying problems, presenting provisions and applicable solutions.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
“General Protection Data Regulation” (2018) (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)
“R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 1058”
“Data Protection Act 2018”
“Equality Act 2010”
“R(T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2015) UKSC 35”
Secondary Sources
Casey, Bryan, Ashkon Farhangi, and Roland Vogl. “Rethinking Explainable Machines: The GDPR’s’ Right to Explanation’Debate and the Rise of Algorithmic Audits in Enterprise.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 34 [2019]: 143.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/berktech34§ion=8
Chander, Anupam, Margot E. Kaminski, and William McGeveran. “Catalyzing privacy law.” Minn. L. Rev. 105 [2020] PL1733.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/mnlr105§ion=37
Di Martino, Giuseppe, Pamela Di Giovanni, Arturo Di Girolamo, Piera Scampoli, Fabrizio Cedrone, Michela D’Addezio, Francesca Meo, Ferdinando Romano, Maria Bernadette Di Sciascio, and Tommaso Staniscia. “Knowledge and attitude towards vaccination among healthcare workers: a multicenter cross-sectional study in a Southern Italian Region.” Vaccines 8, no. 2 [2020] PL 248.https://www.darwinpricing.com/marketing/master-thesis/master-thesis-yannic-blaschke.pdf
Mannion, Cara. “Data Imperialism: The GDPR’s Disastrous Impact on Africa’s E-Commerce Markets.” Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 53 [2020] PL 685.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/vantl53§ion=18
Paisley, Kathleen. “It’s All About the Data: The Impact of the EU General Data Protection Regulation on International Arbitration.” Fordham International Law Journal 41, no. 4 [2018] PL 841.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2707&context=ilj
Pernot-Leplay, Emmanuel. “EU Influence on Data Privacy Laws: Is the US Approach Converging with the EU Model?.” Colo. Tech. LJ 18 [2020] PL 25.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel18§ion=7
Purshouse, Joe, and Liz Campbell. “Automated facial recognition and policing: a Bridge too far?.” Legal Studies [2021] PL 1-19.https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/automated-facial-recognition-and-policing-a-bridge-too-far/347341E2BFA2EF1E3CC896A9C5ECDAD5
Shackelford, Scott J. “Smart Factories, Dumb Policy: Managing Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Risks in the Industrial Internet of Things.” Minn. JL Sci. & Tech. 21 [2019] PL 1.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/mipr21§ion=3
[1] Purshouse, Joe, and Liz Campbell. “Automated facial recognition and policing: a Bridge too far?.” Legal Studies [2021] PL 1-19.
[2] Casey, Bryan, Ashkon Farhangi, and Roland Vogl. “Rethinking Explainable Machines: The GDPR’s’ Right to Explanation’Debate and the Rise of Algorithmic Audits in Enterprise.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 34 [2019]: 143.
[3] Paisley, Kathleen. “It’s All About the Data: The Impact of the EU General Data Protection Regulation on International Arbitration.” Fordham International Law Journal 41, no. 4 [2018] PL 841.
[4] “Data Protection Act 2018”
[5] “R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 1058”
[6] Di Martino, Giuseppe, Pamela Di Giovanni, Arturo Di Girolamo, Piera Scampoli, Fabrizio Cedrone, Michela D’Addezio, Francesca Meo, Ferdinando Romano, Maria Bernadette Di Sciascio, and Tommaso Staniscia. “Knowledge and attitude towards vaccination among healthcare workers: a multicenter cross-sectional study in a Southern Italian Region.” Vaccines 8, no. 2 [2020] PL 248.
[7] “General Protection Data Regulation” (2018) (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)
[8] Mannion, Cara. “Data Imperialism: The GDPR’s Disastrous Impact on Africa’s E-Commerce Markets.” Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 53 [2020] PL 685.
[9] “R(T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2015) UKSC 35”
[10] Pernot-Leplay, Emmanuel. “EU Influence on Data Privacy Laws: Is the US Approach Converging with the EU Model?.” Colo. Tech. LJ 18 [2020] PL 25.
[11] “Equality Act 2010”
[12] Shackelford, Scott J. “Smart Factories, Dumb Policy: Managing Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Risks in the Industrial Internet of Things.” Minn. JL Sci. & Tech. 21 [2019] PL 1.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Know more about UniqueSubmission’s other writing services:
