State Paternalism and Data

  • Ian Berle
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 41)


This chapter discusses how the data is entrusted to data controllers. However, the disconnection between data subject and data controller requires the data subject to trust their information to the paternalistic actions and oversight of the data controller that are the operational aspects of adherence to data protection legislation. But depending on the purpose for which the data is obtained or information surveilled, necessitates judicial oversight to prevent excessive or disproportionate use of surveillance powers that include the covert interception of data. The chapter further discusses the issues surrounding the conflicting demands of State Paternalism and Data.


  1. ACLU (2018) American Civil Liberties Union Letter to Amazon. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  2. Also ‘Davis and Watson DRIPA challenge: Government surveillance law is unlawful, High Court rules,’. Liberty 17th July 2015. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  3. Amazon “Rekognition”. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  4. BBC Newsnight item ‘UK police built secret face photo database (02Feb15)’. Was originally available from: However, subsequently removed “UK police built secret fac... The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement”. Later amended to “This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been closed”
  5. Big Brother Watch Report (2012) A legacy of suspicion: how RIPA has been used by local authorities and public bodies. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  6. Cavendish C (2015) Let M15 spy on granny and her azaleas; a jihadist may be lurking behind them. The Sunday Times, 18th January 2015 Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  7. Charette RN (2018) Automated Facial Recognition: Menace, Farce, or Both? IEEE Spectrum, 29 May 2018. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  8. Cole D (2014) Preserving privacy in a digital age: lessons of comparative constitutionalism. In: Davis F, McGarrity N, Williams G (eds) Surveillance, counter-terrorism and comparative constitutionalism. Routledge, Oxford, pp 112–113Google Scholar
  9. Data and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIP Act). Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  10. Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). Accessed 27 Aug 2019. See Chapter 3, footnote 26
  11. Data Retention and Investigatory Act Explanatory Notes, para 110. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  12. Dixon P (n.d.) A brief introduction to fair information practices. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  13. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01). ( Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  14. Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) privacy course. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  15. Ford R (2014) Photos of innocent kept by police despite court ruling. The Times, 19 December 2014. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  16. GAO (2016) Face Recognition Technology: FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and Accuracy.
  17. GAO (2017) Face Recognition Technology: DOJ and FBI Need to Take Additional Actions to Ensure Privacy and Accuracy. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  18. Gene Watch UK ‘The UK Police National DNA Database’. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  19. Han J, Kamber M (2002) Data mining concepts and techniques. San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Cited by Hernández-Aguilar et al (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Hernández-Aguilar JA, Zavala C, Díaz O, Burlak G, Ochoa A, César Ponce J (2011) Biometric data mining applied to on-line recognition systems. In: Midori A (ed) Biometrics - unique and diverse applications in nature, science, and technology, p 130. Accessed 2 Feb 2020
  21. Hill R (2017) admits investigatory powers act illegal under EU law: cops to be stripped of powers to OK access to comms data in tweaks to Snooper’s Charter. The Register. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  22. Hopkins N, Morris J (2015) ‘Innocent people’ on police photos database’ 3rd February 2015. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  23. Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  24. Identity Documents Act 2010 c. 40 Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  25. Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Accessed 27 August 2019
  26. Investigatory Powers Bill Explanatory Notes. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  27. Investigatory Powers Regulations: Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  28. Johnston I (2015) David Cameron pledges new ‘snoopers’ charter’ if he wins general election. The Independent 12th January 2015. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  29. Law and Lawyers (2015) ‘18 million images ‘Facial recognition ~ Police database revealed’. Accessed 27 Aug. 2019
  30. Liberty: Liberty, Privacy International, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, Article 19 and English PEN briefing on the fast-track Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. Liberty 80 para 13. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  31. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “paternalism” Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  32. Mill JS (1859; 1991) In: Gray J, Smith GW (eds) On liberty in focus. Routledge, New York, p 74Google Scholar
  33. Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB). Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  34. OCED Privacy Framework (2013) p 76 Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  35. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  36. Protection of Freedoms Bill. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  37. R (on the application of) RMC and FJ -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department and Liberty and Equality and Human Rights Commission (RMC and FJ) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2012] EWHC 1681(Admin). Accessed 22 Sept 2019
  38. Robinson N, Graux H, Botterman M, Valeri L (2009) Review of the European Data Protection Directive. p. viii. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  39. Shils EA (1956) The torment of privacy: the background and consequences of American security policies. Free Press, Glencoe, pp 22–23Google Scholar
  40. Solove DJ (2011) Nothing to hide: the false trade off between privacy and security. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 1Google Scholar
  41. Stockley B (2015) Re David Laws (Member of Parliament from 2001–2015) letter to Lord Bates, Home Office Minister. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  42. SWIFT case and the American Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  43. Syndercombe-Court D (2011) DNA analysis: current practice and problems. In: Gall J, Payne-James J (eds) Current practice in forensic medicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 195Google Scholar
  44. Terminology and Notation (for Predictive Analytics) ‘Training Data’. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  45. ‘The Marper case’ Gene Watch UK. S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, 48 EHRR 50, [2009] Crim LR355 Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  46. Theresa May MP (2014) (Then UK Home Secretary) Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  47. Transport for London “Surveillance Cameras” (CCTV). Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  48. UK Home Office (2010) Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Revised Code of Practice (2010). Para 2.6 (Archived & withdrawn). Replaced by: Covert surveillance and property interference code of practice (2018) Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  49. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Accessed 27 Aug 2019
  50. Wittes B (2011) Platform Security and the Hostile Symbiosis Between Liberty and Security. Accessed 27 Aug 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Berle
    • 1
  1. 1.SuttonUK

Personalised recommendations