Data Protection Commissioner responds to the secrecy surrounding the naming of election poster violators

The Data Protection Commissioner has responded to my question regarding data protection and the naming (or not) of candidates and political parties who have been fined for failing to remove election posters in the recent local and European elections.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your recent email query to this Office in relation to the publication by local authorities of persons fined for not removing election posters.

“Name and Shame” schemes may involve disclosure of sensitive personal data (criminal convictions).

Such disclosure requires either the consent of the individual or some other legitimiser in the Data Protection Acts.

Disclosure as part of a “name and shame” policy requires a specific legal provision which triggers Section 8(e) of the Data Protection Acts (“required by or under any enactment or by a rule of law or order of a court”).

An example is the Fines Act 2010 which provides in Section 21 for the publication by the Courts Service of a list of persons who have not paid fines.

In the absence of a legal basis, the position of this Office is that the publishing of names and addresses of private individuals fined or convicted, whether by ways of publication on local authority websites or by way of notices published in the local press (notices paid for by the authority rather than court reports) is likely a breach of the principles of data protection as set down in the Data Protections Acts 1988 & 2003.

4 thoughts on “Data Protection Commissioner responds to the secrecy surrounding the naming of election poster violators”

  1. “In the absence of a legal basis, the position of this Office is that the publishing of names and addresses of private individuals fined or convicted, whether by ways of publication on local authority websites or by way of notices published in the local press (notices paid for by the authority rather than court reports) is likely a breach of the principles of data protection as set down in the Data Protections Acts 1988 & 2003.”

    “private individuals” as a candidate for election you give up being a PRIVATE individual in matters pertaining to the public office you seek, and the scrutiny of a candidates campaign and its conduct would, in a functioning democracy be seen to be in the public interest.

    This data is ALREADY in the public domain, its ALREADY been disclosed, bringing it to the attention of the public
    (since its the council who got them fined) is their duty!

    “is likely a breach of the principles of data protection as set down in the Data Protections Acts 1988 & 2003”
    Well is it or isn’t it?
    Aren’t you the fellow who is been paid to KNOW?

    Yes folks why not try a box of
    “Data Protection Commissioner fudge”
    It’s made from the same traditional ingredients all Irish state fudge has been made from since 1922.

    And remember kids the more Irish state fudge you eat the emptier you feel.

Comments are closed.