Data Protection Act
The Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ) yesterday joined the Press Association of Jamaica in the call for journalism to be exempt from the Data Protection Act, which is now before a Joint Select Committee of Parliament for review.
In a potent presentation to the Dr Andrew Wheatley-chaired committee at Gordon House, MAJ Chairman Christopher Barnes argued that the Bill raised major concerns for media houses, that it threatens freedom of the press, and infringes on constitutional rights. He was joined by representatives of several other media houses, including the Jamaica Observer, Nationwide News Network, the Public Broadcasting Association of Jamaica, and Sun City Radio.
“From our perspectives some of the obligations imposed under the Bill, as proposed, are inconsistent with the fundamental rights under the constitution such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to seek, receive distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas through any media… it would have grave consequences on media’s ability to provide news to the citizens of this country. We see in other jurisdictions legislation to protect journalists. This seems to be going in the other direction,” Barnes stated.
He said the association had difficulty with the definition of personal data, which is too wide and vague. “If this was already in law, just a cursory look at some of the publications which we did last week — and I’m sure the same would hold for the Observer and colleagues who broadcast information every day — in The Gleaner we would have infringed this Bill over 70 times as worded; these are things that are time-based, you print it today for tomorrow,” he said.
Barnes argued further that “the business of media would be devastated” by the passage of the proposed Bill, as free speech would be shackled, and the administrative burden that would be placed on media houses would be so onerous that it would “signal the death of our business”.
“Given the nature of the media business it could prove very onerous if the media were to be asked on each instance that it handles personal data to provide registration particulars before the information can be processed. It is impractical to impose such restraints on the media unless the intent is to stifle or control the media, to aid and abet in the censorship of media,” he stated.
The MAJ is of the view that the use of personal data for journalistic purposes should be exempted from the Bill completely, and proposes changes to the definition of personal data to exclude data that was already within the purview of the public at the time it was received by the media house.
Barnes also said that the requirement for the description of data to be provided to the information commissioner is worrying, as much of the personal data received by media, though stored, remains highly sensitive.
“To allow the public to have access to even just a description of same may expose our media workers and our organisations to harm,” he stated, also noting that protections for journalists are very limited and are only provided for under certain sections of the Bill.
He contended also that the fines, such as 10 per cent of the gross profit of an organisation, could shut down a media entity, given the challenges already being faced by traditional media.
The committee chairman became angry at one point during the discussions, insisting that the MAJ furnish the committee with examples of other jurisdictions which have exempted media from their data protection legislation, telling Opposition MP Mark Golding, who interjected, to “control yourself, member”, then interrupting Barnes with “Can you just answer the question?” as the media manager sought to explain that the MAJ research had found that other countries have been struggling to find a suitable balance between press freedom and data protection requirements.
“With the research that we have done, we have been unable to find where it works, and where it satisfies the concerns about the limitations on freedom of the press,” Barnes said. “We are willing to dialogue more and research more, but what we contend is that as the Bill is drafted now, the concerns are far too great for us not to state our position as we have.”
The Data Protection Act provides for the confidentiality of personal data held by companies, organisations, government and other entities; and the protection of the rights of individuals in relation to their personal data. It is a companion measure to the National Identification and Registration Act which was passed late last year amidst protests by the Opposition over aspects of the legislation.