A proposal to amend the Courts Bill has sparked controversy as it would grant the Data Protection Commissioner the authority to designate information in investigations as ‘confidential’. While some argue that this is an attempt to suppress dissent, the government insists that objections are rooted in misunderstanding.
The proposed amendments to the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022 aim to safeguard the confidentiality of disclosures and correspondence made during Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) investigations or complaints. The government claims that this is necessary to prevent regulatory probes from being undermined or legally challenged due to unfair procedures.
However, Amnesty International, Beuc, EDRi, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have voiced their criticism of the proposed legal change. Amnesty Tech’s director, Rasha Abdul-Rahim, argues that the Irish government is using these amendments to silence individuals and organizations advocating for privacy and data protection. She views it as an attempt to shield large tech companies from scrutiny.
The statement from Amnesty Tech also highlights concerns about the limitations these amendments would impose on accountability. They claim that it would hinder people from publicly holding the DPC and tech giants accountable for their actions.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties further claims that these amendments would discourage individuals from speaking out about the misuse of their data by big tech companies or public bodies. They argue that this amendment has been introduced at the last minute, indicating a lack of transparency.
EDRi and Beuc have also expressed their concerns regarding this proposal, with EDRi writing to Justice Minister Helen McEntee to request the withdrawal of the amendment. Beuc has labeled the amendments as “troubling.”
The amendments, which are to be debated in the Oireachtas, define “confidential” information as information given in confidence with the understanding that it will be treated as such by the DPC. Disclosure of this information would likely impede the DPC’s ability to obtain further information relevant to the case.
The Department of Justice has stated that these amendments are intended to prevent investigations from being compromised by the premature disclosure of information that could be used to challenge the investigation or its outcomes. They assert that the scope and purpose of the amendment have been misinterpreted, clarifying that it does not prevent complainants from speaking out about their data privacy complaints or the existence of a complaint. It applies solely to individuals engaged with the DPC during the performance of specific statutory functions related to inquiries and investigations.
The spokesperson for the Department of Justice explains that these amendments are aimed at ensuring effective and fair investigations of GDPR breaches to protect the privacy of EU citizens. They argue that breaches of confidentiality can undermine the regulation of data processors and allow violations to go unpunished. The spokesperson emphasizes that the amendments do not affect media reporting or the obligations of the DPC under the GDPR.
Despite these explanations, Amnesty Tech’s director argues that these amendments will not address Ireland’s inadequate enforcement of data protection for European citizens. She believes that Ireland should fully adhere to the EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and hold big tech companies accountable to protect internet users’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
The Irish Council of Civil Liberties also expresses disappointment in these amendments, describing them as the latest in a series of missteps in reforming the DPC. They argue that justice should be conducted publicly, highlighting the Supreme Court’s Zalewski Decision, which called for public GDPR hearings. They view the government’s attempt to increase opaqueness in DPC decision-making as counterproductive.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Courts Bill have sparked controversy, with critics accusing the government of attempting to silence dissent and shield big tech companies. However, the government asserts that the amendments are necessary to protect the integrity of investigations and ensure fair procedures. The debate surrounding these amendments highlights concerns about transparency, accountability, and the enforcement of data protection regulations.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
