Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 JANUARY 2021

Test And Trace In The World Of Data Protection

Bristows LLP
Bristows LLP
Contributor
Bristows LLP

Bristows LLP

We are Bristows, the world’s leading specialist law firm for clients that innovate. We are a London...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bristows LLP

The risks are relatively low, as the NHS Test and Trace app was designed with privacy protection at the forefront.

United KingdomPrivacy
Fiona Campbell
Fiona Campbell

Background

In our last article on test and trace back in May, my colleague Ed Pullicino explained the technical aspects and data protection implications of the two different types of test and trace app the government was considering using to halt the spread of COVID-19. The government has since chosen to go with the de-centralised model created by Apple and Google, alongside a traditional manual test and trace system, after a pilot of the centralised model created by NHSX produced patchy results1. There were numerous concerns about the centralised model from a privacy and data protection perspective, as all data was held in one central location, which could be vulnerable to attack or misuse, and some people were concerned about the government being able to track people's location or to repurpose the data for another use2 3. So now that the de-centralised model has been chosen, is there any reason for concern?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ten AI Giants, One Regulator And A Lesson For Everyone Else: What The ICO’s Foundation Model Report Really Tells Us

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has completed its supervision of major AI foundation model developers, revealing significant gaps in data protection practices and setting new expectations for legitimate interests assessments, transparency, and special category data handling. The regulator has now turned its attention to agentic AI systems, warning that autonomy is not an excuse for poor compliance and launching a call for evidence that will shape future regulatory guidance.
United KingdomPrivacy
Burges Salmon LLP
Burges Salmon LLP
Article

ICO Cookie Crackdown 2.0: The ICO’s New Storage And Access Technologies Guidance

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has finalized its guidance on storage and access technologies, expanding compliance requirements beyond traditional cookies to include tracking pixels, device fingerprinting, and web storage. Organizations must now navigate stricter consent standards and three new narrow exceptions introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, while facing significantly increased enforcement penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover.
United KingdomPrivacy
ZwillGen
ZwillGen
Article

To Fine Or Not To Fine: EDPB Confirms Default Position In GDPR Enforcement Should Be To Fine

The European Data Protection Board has published draft guidelines proposing a fundamental shift in GDPR enforcement: a presumption that fines should be imposed for non-minor infringements, with a deliberately low bar for establishing negligence. Organizations will need to demonstrate robust compliance programs and documented decision-making to potentially avoid penalties, as regulators move from asking "should we fine?" to "can we justify not fining?"
GlobalPrivacy
Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article

European Commission Press Release: EU AI Act Transparency Enforcement Starts This Sunday! Do You Know Who Your Chatbots Are? We Break Down The Commission’s Guidelines On Transparency Below

The European Commission has announced that EU AI Act transparency rules take effect August 2, 2026, requiring chatbots to identify themselves, deepfakes to be labeled, and AI-generated content to be marked. Organizations must assess whether their AI systems trigger disclosure, labeling, or content-marking requirements, with limited exceptions and penalties reaching €15 million or 3% of global turnover for noncompliance.
GlobalPrivacy
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

Spotlight On Agentic AI | Liability

As businesses increasingly deploy agentic AI systems capable of autonomous decision-making and actions, questions arise about supplier liability when AI agents malfunction or produce unexpected results. This article examines the contractual frameworks governing agentic AI relationships, revealing how standard IT contracts may inadequately address the unique risks of autonomous AI systems and exploring strategies for customers to better protect themselves against potential losses from AI agent failures.
United KingdomCorporate/Commercial Law
Bristows LLP
Bristows LLP
Article

SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Limited The ECJ Reference And Potential Implications For Software Licensors

The proceedings between SAS Institute Inc ("SAS") and World Programming Limited, ("WPL") which led to an extensive judgment from Mr Justice Arnold in July 2010, have resulted in nine questions, principally relating to the interpretation of the Software Directive, being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ").
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Bristows LLP
Bristows LLP