Privacy campaigners have warned that voters’ personal data could be used to target them with political messaging under new laws.In a letter written to Chris Bryant, the data protection minister, and the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, campaigners said there was “potential for abuse of new powers” in the data protection legislation, which was introduced to parliament at the end of 2024.The campaigners, spearheaded by the Open Rights Group, said the new laws would give the secretary of state discretion to determine how personal data was used to target political campaigning, and to time this in a way that would give the ruling party an electoral advantage over opponents.The letter, which is supported by signatories including Big Brother Watch, Unlock Democracy, Fair Vote UK, Good Law Project, Keep Our NHS Public and three academics, describes these as “Henry VIII powers”, since they would allow any future government to change the rules with minimal parliamentary oversight.Under current data protection law, organisations including political parties must risk-assess use of personal data to balance individuals’ rights with the interests of the organisation processing the data. This assessment can be challenged by individuals.The proposed data (use and access) bill, which is expected to come into force in early 2026, would permit the secretary of state to use personal data without the same risk assessment and without it being subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as other legislation.James Baker, a programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: “Political parties are stuck in an arms race as to how they can use data to reach and influence potential voters in order to win elections.“It’s therefore vital that there are clear and fair rules for how political parties are allowed to use our data. Any changes to these rules must be properly scrutinised by parliament. This is not just about how our data is being used now; it’s about the future of our democracy.”While Baker noted the government might not intend to use these powers to sneak through changes, he said there could be no guarantee that future administrations would operate in the same way, particularly against a backdrop of “a surge in populist governments that are prepared to use executive powers to advance their agenda”.He added: “This is not the time to weaken parliamentary scrutiny; the government must act to prevent the data bill from enabling future abuses of power.”A Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson said the use of personal data for political campaigning or engagement was “not included in the measures of the data bill”.Noting that regulations would be subject to “three robust safeguards”, including consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Officer, approval by the UK parliament and a requirement to serve the important objectives of general public interest, they added: “It is also false to claim there would be no parliamentary oversight of potential changes to these rules.”Ross McKenzie, a partner at Addleshaw Goddard, said the law was written in such a way that future secretaries of state would not have a “completely unfettered right” to use personal data, and acknowledged it would probably only be in “extreme scenarios” that ministers might “extend recognised legitimate interest grounds without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny”.But he added: “Other countries with General Data Protection Regulation rules in Europe don’t have this allowance. The UK government’s view is to make doing business in the UK easier, and one way is to give more flexible rights to use data – this allowance makes that quicker and easier to achieve. But I can see why it’s not attractive from a human rights perspective.”The data bill is designed to cut red tape around data use, and the government has estimated it could add some £10bn to the UK economy over a period of 10 years.Peers in the House of Lords constitution committee have previously expressed concerns, warning they were “not satisfied that the case has been sufficiently made to entrust the powers in these clauses to secondary legislation”.
Data protection bill leaves room for governmental abuse, campaigners warn
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Privacy Advocates Warn of Potential Misuse in New Data Protection Bill"
The Guardian
7.0
TruthLens AI Summary
Privacy campaigners have raised significant concerns regarding a new data protection bill that could potentially allow for the misuse of voters' personal data in political messaging. In a formal letter addressed to Chris Bryant, the data protection minister, and deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, advocates from various organizations, including the Open Rights Group, expressed worries over what they term the 'potential for abuse of new powers' embedded in the legislation introduced to Parliament at the end of 2024. The campaigners argue that the bill grants the secretary of state excessive discretion in determining how personal data is utilized for political campaigning, which could create an uneven playing field that favors the ruling party. This power, likened to 'Henry VIII powers' due to its potential for minimal parliamentary oversight, raises alarms about future administrations being able to alter data usage rules without sufficient checks and balances in place. The current data protection framework requires entities, including political parties, to conduct risk assessments when handling personal data, ensuring a balance between individual rights and organizational interests. However, the proposed changes would eliminate this requirement, allowing personal data usage without the same level of scrutiny that other legislative actions would typically demand.
James Baker, a program manager at Open Rights Group, emphasized the necessity for clear and equitable regulations governing how political parties access and utilize personal data. He underscored the importance of parliamentary oversight to prevent any future misuse of power, especially in light of a growing trend of populist governments that may exploit executive powers. While a spokesperson from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology contended that the bill does not include provisions for using personal data in political campaigning, they acknowledged there would be three safeguards in place, including consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office and parliamentary approval. Legal expert Ross McKenzie noted that while the bill aims to facilitate data usage for businesses, it raises significant human rights concerns. Additionally, the bill is projected to contribute approximately £10 billion to the UK economy over the next decade, but the House of Lords constitution committee has expressed skepticism regarding the justification for granting such broad powers through secondary legislation.
TruthLens AI Analysis
Concerns are rising regarding the implications of the new data protection bill, particularly its potential for governmental abuse. Privacy advocates are sounding alarms about how personal data from voters could be weaponized for political gain under the proposed legislation. The letter addressed to key government figures highlights significant worries about the discretionary powers it grants to the secretary of state, suggesting that these could lead to an imbalance in political campaigning.
Implications of the New Legislation
The proposed data protection bill, set to take effect in early 2026, allows the secretary of state to utilize personal data without the rigorous risk assessments currently mandated. This change has been labeled as "Henry VIII powers," indicating a shift towards less parliamentary oversight and greater control by the government. Campaigners argue that this could result in the ruling party leveraging voter data more effectively than their opponents, creating an uneven playing field in elections.
Public Perception and Potential Manipulation
The article seeks to foster a sense of caution among the public, encouraging them to consider the ramifications of the bill on their privacy and democratic rights. By emphasizing the potential for abuse, the narrative cultivates a distrust of governmental intentions, particularly in the context of political campaigning. This approach may obscure other ongoing discussions about data protection and privacy rights, focusing instead on the fears associated with misuse.
Comparative Context and Broader Connections
When compared to other news stories addressing data privacy and government transparency, this article aligns with a growing narrative of skepticism towards state powers. It connects with broader themes of digital rights and privacy concerns, resonating with audiences who prioritize these issues. The organizations backing the letter signify a coalition of groups dedicated to protecting civil liberties, indicating a unified front in response to perceived threats from the government.
Economic and Political Scenarios
This news could have implications for political dynamics as public opinion may shift towards demanding stricter regulations against potential governmental overreach. Economically, tech companies and political organizations might need to adjust their data usage strategies in response to public backlash or regulatory changes. In the long run, this could influence investment in technology sectors dealing with data privacy solutions.
Target Audiences and Community Support
The article appears to resonate more with civil rights activists, privacy advocates, and politically conscious individuals who are wary of governmental control over personal information. By targeting these communities, the article aims to mobilize public sentiment against the bill and reinforce the importance of democratic safeguards.
Market Impact and Global Relevance
While the article may not have immediate implications for stock markets, it could affect companies involved in data processing, political consulting, or technology sectors focused on privacy solutions. The conversation around data protection is globally relevant, as many countries grapple with similar issues regarding privacy and governmental power.
Use of AI in Reporting
It's plausible that AI tools were utilized in drafting this article, especially in structuring the arguments or analyzing data trends. However, the direct influence of AI on the narrative remains unclear. The language used in the article, particularly the focus on "abuse" and "control," may suggest an intent to provoke a specific emotional response from readers. The article is largely credible, presenting legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse of power within the new data protection framework. However, the framing of these issues may evoke fear and distrust that could overshadow balanced discussions about data rights and governmental responsibilities. The overall reliability is bolstered by the involvement of established advocacy groups and the emphasis on oversight and democratic processes.