Ravi Naik and Alex Lawrence-Archer, prominent data rights lawyers, have raised concerns about the UK Government’s proposed changes to the UK GDPR, warning that these changes could weaken important data protection rights.
They highlight the potential exploitation of vulnerable groups such as problem gamblers and gig economy workers if the government proceeds with its current course.
In a foreword by Lord Clement-Jones CBE, Vice Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Regulation and Responsibility, he expresses apprehension about the Bill, stating that it represents a step back from current data protection standards.
Lawyers in Court (Credits: slate.com)
He emphasizes the risk to individuals’ privacy rights and the potential impact on the UK’s data adequacy status with the EU, which could have significant implications for businesses and trade.
Dr. Ann Kristin Glenster, from the University of Cambridge, echoes these concerns, emphasizing the widening power imbalance between individuals and large data controllers, particularly Big Tech and public services. She predicts drastic consequences, not only for individuals but also for businesses, if the proposed changes are implemented.
The UK Government‘s Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) Bill, introduced post-Brexit, aims to safeguard the public. However, Naik and Lawrence-Archer argue that it fundamentally weakens protections against personal data misuse by digital operators.
They highlight the removal of obligations to protect anonymized data, posing significant risks of privacy breaches, especially in sensitive sectors like healthcare.
Lawyers (Credits: CNN)
Changes to rules on Subject Access Requests (SARs) are concerning. Previously, SARs could only be rejected if deemed “manifestly unfounded or excessive.” Under the proposed Bill, organizations can refuse SARs if they are “vexatious or excessive,” conditions deemed vague and open to misinterpretation by the authors.
These alterations could lead operators to ignore requests and prolong dispute resolutions, undermining fundamental digital rights for consumers and workers.
The authors argue that rushed parliamentary proceedings and last-minute substantive amendments leave insufficient time for proper scrutiny. They urge Parliament to allocate adequate time to scrutinize the amendments thoroughly.
