The UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s (“ICO”) has revised its statutory Code of Practice on assessment notices (the “Code”). The ICO first issued the Code in 2010, when its audit powers came into force. The Code has now been updated to reflect changes in auditing standards and practices.
Background
Since 2010, the ICO has been empowered under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) to undertake compulsory audits of central governments and other designated bodies, by serving a Section 41A assessment notice on an organization. The ICO has called for the extension of these powers to include local government, the national health service and the private sector. The ICO offers voluntary audits free of charge to organizations that the ICO cannot compel to submit to an audit.
The ICO also is empowered to conduct compulsory audits of electronic communications service providers that are subject to the statutory personal data breach notification requirements under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC) Directive Regulations 2003 (“PECR”). The Code does not apply to audits conducted under PECR.
Purpose of Audits
The purpose of an audit is to enable the ICO to determine whether an organization is in compliance with the requirements of the DPA. The ICO views audits as a “constructive” process with “real benefits” for data controllers. Because it intends the audit process to be participatory, the ICO usually invites organizations to consent to a voluntary audit first, rather than automatically issuing a Section 41A assessment notice. The ICO also prefers to conduct voluntary audits since they can be broader in scope and include good practice recommendations, whereas compulsory audits are limited in scope to determining compliance with DPA requirements.
Use of Compulsory Audits
The Code sets out how and when the ICO will exercise its powers of compulsory audits. Following the Regulators’ Compliance Code, the ICO adopts a risk-based, proportionate and targeted approach to conducting audits. Section 41A assessment notices will be served when deemed necessary by the ICO, as when:
- a risk assessment indicates that personal data are likely not being processed in accordance with DPA requirements and there is a likelihood of damage or distress to individuals; and
- the organization has failed to respond to written requests from the ICO and has refused to submit to a consensual audit; or
- there is a need to verify that an organization has taken appropriate steps to comply with a formal undertaking or enforcement notice.
Audit Process
Audits are conducted in two phases. An off-site ‘adequacy’ audit is conducted first, to review policies, procedures, guidance and training materials. Then a multi-day, on-site ‘compliance’ audit is conducted, involving interviewing staff and observing data handling processes.
Reporting
Following an audit, the ICO issues an audit report, which gives an audit opinion as to whether the organization has or is complying with the requirements of the DPA. The ICO presents a draft report to the audited organization to enable it to verify the report’s factual accuracy. The basic details of the audit and an executive summary of the report are made available for a year on the ICO’s public website and thereafter may still be available on request.
Success of Compulsory Audit Powers
The Code was first published in 2010, when the ICO’s new powers to conduct compulsory audits took effect. Information Commissioner Christopher Graham notes that since 2010, the ICO has not issued a single assessment notice, as the mere possibility of issuing a formal notice appears to be sufficient encouragement for data controllers to agree to submit to a voluntary audit. Commissioner Graham therefore concludes that “the success of the compulsory audit power has been clearly illustrated in practice.” He views the compulsory audit power as a ‘necessary backstop’, and sees the success experienced to date with central governments as a strong reason to extend the scope of the powers to local government, the health service and the private sector. The ICO recently submitted a business case to the UK Ministry of Justice seeking these extensions.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code