Penalty Notice

Bob Rivers made this Freedom of Information request to Information Commissioner's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Does the Information Commissioner's Office have evidence that Google collected data from WiFi sources in the UK after April 6th 2010, in breach of the Data Protection Act?

If yes, has the Information Commissioner considered issuing a civil monetary penalty against Google, given that the ICO’s position in press releases has been that a fine is not possible, rather than not appropriate?

What are the reasons for deciding not to issue a penalty, assuming that the ICO has evidence that data was collected after April 6th? If no such evidence exists, this question is obviously irrelevant.

If the ICO has considered a penalty and decided not to issue one, what is the name and job title of the person who made this decision?

If the supply of emails, minutes or notes would help to answer these questions, I would be grateful to receive them. However, I do not object to receiving a summary, as long as it is based on recorded information.

Yours faithfully,

Bob Rivers

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

23rd November 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0361337

Dear Mr Rivers

Request for Information

Thank you for your email of 23 November 2010.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 21 December which is 20 working
days from the day after we received your request.

Should you wish to reply to this email, please be careful not to amend the
information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the
information is added directly to your case. However, please be aware that
this is an automated process; the information will not be read by a member
of our staff until your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Rose

Lead Internal Compliance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radE5DEC_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

2 Attachments

Link: [1]File-List

17th December 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0361337

Dear Mr Rivers

Request for Information

Further to my acknowledgement of 23 November 2010 we are now in a position
to provide you with a response to your request for information dated 19
November 2010.

In your e-mail you asked us to provide you with the following information,
or respond to the following enquiries, and where appropriate you have
asked us to provide you with copies of e-mails, minutes or notes where
this helps to illustrate our responses.  Because of this we have dealt
with your e-mail as a formal request for information in accordance with
section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 

1)      Does the Information Commissioner's Office have evidence that
Google collected data from WiFi sources in the UK after April 6th 2010, in
breach of the Data Protection Act?
We have attached (under a separate e-mail) copies of correspondence
exchanged between the ICO and Google between April and June 2010, which
help to illustrate what we were told by Google, and when.  In response to
your query we are aware that some Street View collections continued in the
UK beyond 6 April, and into early May 2010. Alan Eustace’s statement of
14 May 2010 appears to confirm this (a copy is contained in Sarah
Hunter’s e-mail to Chris Graham of 14 May, in the attached document).
However, beyond this we do not hold any ‘evidence’ as such.

2)      If yes, has the Information Commissioner considered issuing a
civil monetary penalty against Google, given that the ICO's position in
press releases has been that a fine is not possible, rather than not
appropriate?

We have attached a further document titled ‘Google Street View –
monetary penalty information’, which contains extracts from internal
e-mails dated 2 and 3 November.  As these extracts demonstrate, the ICO
did consider whether or not it was appropriate to issue a Monetary Penalty
Notice to Google. 

3)     What are the reasons for deciding not to issue a penalty,
assuming that the ICO has evidence that data was collected after April
6th? If no such evidence exists, this question is obviously irrelevant.

Please see 2) above.

4)      If the ICO has considered a penalty and decided not to issue
one, what is the name and job title of the person who made this decision?

As the extracts show various members of ICO staff had some input in the
decision not to issue a Monetary Penalty Notice.  However, given the
involvement of the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, in this
discussion, it is fair to say that the final decision was his.

In addition to the above, we have also attached (under a separate e-mail)
copies of our more recent correspondence with Google, from late October to
late November 2010, which discusses the Information Commissioner’s
letter to Peter Fleischer of Google dated 3 November, and the subsequent
undertaking signed by the ICO and Google of 22 November 2010.  This
correspondence also goes on to discuss the deletion of the payload data
captured by Google via the Street View cars.

You will see from the attached copy correspondence that some information
has been removed, or redacted.  This information contains the names and
contact details of members of staff at Google with whom we have
corresponded recently, home contact details for ICO staff and the names
and contact details of ICO staff who do not perform a public facing
role.  This information has been redacted in accordance with section
40(2) of the FOIA which, by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i), which allows a
public authority to withhold information from a response to a request
under the FOIA when the information requested is personal data relating to
someone other than the requestor, and its disclosure would contravene one
of the Data Protection principles.  Therefore, we have redacted this
information on the basis that to provide it would be unfair to the
individuals in question, and therefore in breach of the first Data
Protection principle which states that – “Personal data shall be
processed fairly and lawfully …”. 

I hope that this provides you with the information you require.  However,
if you are dissatisfied with this response and wish to request a review of
our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled
you should write to the Internal Compliance Team at the address below or
e-mail [2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to our First Contact Team, at the address given or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information
Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely

Antonia Swann

Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Tel: 01625 545894

[3]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad69B6A_files/filelist.xml
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

17th December 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0361337

Dear Mr Rivers

Further to my earlier e-mail, please find attached the document containing
the ICO/Google correspondence dated from April to June 2010.

Yours sincerely

Antonia Swann Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

T. 01625 545894 F. 01625 524510 [2]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad78F68_files/filelist.xml
2. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

17th December 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0361337

Dear Mr Rivers

Further to my earlier e-mail, please find attached the document containing
the ICO/Google correspondence dated from April to June 2010.

Yours sincerely

Antonia Swann Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

T. 01625 545894 F. 01625 524510 [2]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad0EDD9_files/filelist.xml
2. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/