The British Home Office has violated the basic rights of those affected with its pilot project to monitor migrants with an electronic ankle bracelet and the tracking of location data via GPS. The British data protection commissioner John Edwards came to this conclusion after an investigation into the case. According to him, the Interior Department did not sufficiently take into account the deep intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the continuous collection of location information. The government agency also failed to assess the potential impact on people who may already be in vulnerable situations due to their immigration status and who do not speak English fluently.
Advertisement
According to the Edwards decision, the Home Office did not clearly and openly inform those affected about what personal data was collected, how it was used, how long it was retained and with whom it was shared. The test was completed in December. However, authorities could continue to use the collected data until it is deleted or anonymized. The data protection authority, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), has therefore instructed the ministry to update its relevant internal guidelines on access and the privacy of those affected. It also issued a formal warning that any future processing by the Home Office on the old basis “will constitute a breach of data protection law and will result in enforcement action”.
No information on necessity and proportionality
Following a complaint from Privacy International, the ICO has been negotiating with the department since August 2022 about the initiative, as part of which ankle bracelets with GPS tracking were attached to up to 600 migrants. The unauthorized immigrants were on bail during their asylum application process. With the project, the ministry wanted to explore whether electronic surveillance makes it possible to maintain regular contact with those affected and reduce the risk of escape. At the same time, the government wanted to find out whether this procedure was an effective alternative to imprisonment. However, according to the ICO, throughout the investigation the department was unable to explain why the measure was “necessary or proportionate”. It also did not demonstrate “that it had considered less intrusive methods.”
“Viewing a person's movements 24 hours a day is a powerful intrusion as it is likely to reveal a lot of information about them,” said Edwards, explaining his decision. Potentially sensitive information about religion, sexuality or health status could be derived from this. A lack of explanation about how this data will be handled could also inadvertently affect the freedom of movement and the right to participate in everyday activities. “We recognize the Home Office’s vital work in keeping the UK safe,” the controller highlighted. However, this should not use the same approach again. Fundamental rights must be maintained even under adverse circumstances.
(NO)