A couple of correspondents have brought the latest Tory “Community Survey” to Owl’s attention.
The first tore it up in disgust, the second sent Owl a scan.
It is not clear how widely this has been distributed within Jupp’s constituency; it asks questions on both national and local issues.
Here is how Simon introduces it:
But these were the three personal questions that stuck in the craw of the correspondents:
This survey was personally addressed, using information from the electoral register for what are deemed to be electoral purposes.
Despite having their name printed on the survey, recipients were also asked to confirm their name, if they returned the survey in the prepaid envelope.
Interesting questions: under the data protection act how do you justify holding, and how do you store and for how long, information on how individuals voted in a secret ballot? What uses are you entitled to put it to? Who has access to it?- Owl
If this is not compliant with the UK GDPR it should be referred to the ICO!? It is clear that this information will be used to target and pressurise those marginal voters who have recently changed allegiance or are not sure how they will vote. Jupp is clearly running scared and in fear of his job and prepared to use any tactics to stay in post!
When collecting personally identifiable data, it is necessary explicitly to gain the persons consent to you processing it. It is not enough for you to have consent implied by the returning of the form. To get this consent you have to explicitly state the purposes for which you are going to use it, and your use is them limited by that statement.
I haven’t seen the leaflet, but I doubt that it provided either an explanation or a place for the user explicitly to confirm the processing of the data.
In addition, political data was (when it was the Data Protection Act) considered to be sensitive personal data, which requires additional security etc. for handling. I would be interested to know whether this data will be held securely and if so what measures are used to protect it from being viewed by people who have no real need to see it.
In this instance, the implication is that this data is being collected purely for statistical purposes – to identify local concerns. No one has yet mentioned any text on this survey which says that this data – and in particular the sensitive personal data – can be used for political campaigning. On this basis, I would think that any future use of this data as a source for political marketing would be absolutely illegal under GDPR.
Sorry – I am ex forces.
No one has the right to acquire or hold ANY DATA that is not specifically requested – even the Police … who have to destroy / delete any data that is 2 years or older that is not pursuant to a warranted investigation. This is the same for the MI5 homeland security service. The only government department who is required to maintain specific records are your Doctor/GP and these are medical records only. Dentist – dental records only. School – school records only. All shall make any records totally available to the person – so recorded – any data subsequent interpretation is not a record and is not allowed to be maintained unless it is also shared with the person and agreed to … note this is not a court record – which is in the public record ( unless under the security acts meaning a closed hearing is required )
I have looked at the data protection stuff on the bottom of the back page and at first sight it looks OK. However:
3. I am not quite sure what would happen if the survey was returned without this having been filled in as it contains personally identifiable data (name and address on the front) but the person has clearly not consented to the processing of the data.
4. The idea that Simon Jupp has either A) any interest in local opinions, or B) any ability to represent local opinions under the whipping system if these opinions are contrary to Tory Party policy is IMO extremely unlikely. On that basis, the purpose of the survey may very well be a lie, in which case it could be argued (though probably not successfully) that any consent given is invalid because it was obtained under false pretences.
5. The purposes stated are so excessively broad as to be VERY worrying indeed. As Owl has pointed out, effectively you are inviting them to harass you.
IMO a formal legal opinion would be very interesting on the first 4 points – because it would not surprise me if some of these were illegal under DPA/GDPR.
It is a pity that the addressee is printed on the front, otherwise there would be nothing whatsoever to stop people from returning it with false names i.e. Hugo Swyne, E. Trusso, Jake R Moggey, Richard Sunny, Margaret Roofer, Simone Juppett (pronounced a bit like Hyacinth would except the “et” is silent), Matthew Andgyob, etc. Perhaps a good quality scan, with some photoshop erasing of the name and address (so it looks like it just hasn’t been printed) would allow this sort of innocent (but ultimately democratic) mischief to be promulgated.
I would also encourage literally every person who receives this survey to return the envelope regardless of whether they complete the survey in order that the Tory Party has to pay the postage.