Persónuvernd - 2020082249

From GDPRhub
Persónuvernd - 2020082249
LogoIS.png
Authority: Persónuvernd (Iceland)
Jurisdiction: Iceland
Relevant Law: Article 85 GDPR
Article 39 Act 90/2018 on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data
Article 6 Act 90/2018 on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data
Article 71 Constitution of the Republic of Iceland
Article 73 Constitution of the Republic of Iceland
Article 26 Act 38/2011 on Media
Type: Advisory Opinion
Outcome: n/a
Decided: 05.10.2020 [[Category:]]
Published: 06.10.2020 [[Category:]]
Fine: None
Parties: n/a
National Case Number/Name: 2020082249
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Icelandic
Original Source: Persónuvernd (in IS)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Icelandic DPA (Persónuvernd) considered that it was not competent to rule in a binding manner as to whether processing of personal data by a media entity for journalistic purposes breached the Icelandic Act 90/2018 or the GDPR. Instead, it considered that a court should balance the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

As the Icelandic DPA receives complaints on media coverage of individuals on a regular basis, it has decided to issue an opinion on the relationship between freedom of expression of the media and the privacy of individuals. This new opinion comes as an update of previous opinions regarding privacy and the media issued in the context of older laws.

Holding[edit | edit source]

The Icelandic DPA outlined the importance of media and freedom of expression in a democratic society. It went on to say that the media must also guarantee democratic principles, including the respect for rights such as the right to privacy.

The DPA outlined that freedom of expression, as well as the right to privacy, were enshrined in the Icelandic Constitution. The right to freedom of expression can be found under Article 73, whilst the right to privacy falls within Article 71 of the Constitution. Elaboration on the latter Article can be found in the national Act 90/2018 and the GDPR.

The Icelandic DPA outlined that Article 6 Act 90/2018 provides for the harmonization of the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The Article is based on Article 85 GDPR which obliges member states to reconcile data protection law and freedom of expression in national law. Article 6 Act 90/2018 establishes that only Article 5(1)(a) and (d), Articles 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 40-43 and 82 GDPR will apply in the context processing for journalistic purposes.

The Icelandic DPA then went on to describe its tasks pursuant to Article 39 Act 90/2018. This includes deciding whether there is a breach of the Act or the GDPR on the basis of complaints made. However, the DPA does not consider itself to be competent to assess the boundaries between the constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression where a media entity is concerned. It deems that a court is better place to make such decisions. Therefore, the DPA does not have jurisdiction to determine whether an individual has gone beyond it constitutional right to freedom of expression and thereby breached another’s right to data protection. The DPA mentioned that depending on the fact, it could rule on the legitimacy of processing where the data controller is a non-media entity (individual or private company).

In any case, parties processing personal data for journalistic purposes must comply with Article 5(1)(a) and (d), Articles 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 40-43 and 82 GDPR. The Iceland DPA then went on to outline what certain of these provisions entailed (such as Article 5(1)(a) and (d)) for journalists. It notably highlighted that under Article 26 Media Act 38/2011, journalists have a duty to respect human rights including the right to privacy.

The Icelandic DPA also provided some suggestions as each case is to be determined on a case by case basis. The sensitivity of the personal data is significant. Additionally, the status of the person in question (whether they are a public figure, for example) should be considered. This is particularly important as Article 73 of the Constitution on freedom of expression has been interpreted broadly by Icelandic courts where it concerns public figures. The context of the publication must be considered before publishing personal information.

Comment[edit | edit source]

Share your comments here!

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the Icelandic original. Please refer to the Icelandic original for more details.

Opinion - Privacy and freedom of expression of the media
Case no. 2020082249

October 6, 2020

Privacy receives regular complaints regarding the media's coverage of individuals, both in the form of complaints and general inquiries. For that reason, and with reference to the supervisory role of the Data Protection Authority, the Agency has now issued an opinion on the legal environment of the media with regard to privacy, the limits of the Data Protection Authority's authority in this regard and the views that the media need to consider when processing personal information.

The conclusion of the opinion is that the processing of personal information by the media and other parties for the benefit of journalism falls largely outside the scope of the Data Protection Authority. The Office is therefore not competent to rule in a binding manner on whether the processing of personal data in that field complies with the provisions of the Act and the Regulation. It is up to the courts to assess whether the media have exceeded the limits of their freedom of expression or violated the provisions of Act no. 90/2018 and the Regulation or, as the case may be, other provisions of law.
Opinion

Privacy and freedom of expression of the media

The other On 5 October 2020, the Data Protection Authority approved the following opinion in case no. 2020082249:
I.
Introduction

The media play an important role in a democratic society and are a forum for discussion and exchange of views, information and entertainment. They enjoy great freedom so that they can best inform the public about current events engages in and socially important issues. Freedom, however, comes with responsibility and the media must uphold the democratic principles of all their work, respect for freedom of expression and privacy.

By nature, the media work with personal information every day. Act no. 90/2018, on personal protection and processing of personal information, and a regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the Regulation) apply, however, only to a limited extent to that processing. Privacy receives regular reports on media coverage individuals, both in the form of complaints and general inquiries. For that reason and with reference to the supervisory role of the institution according to Act no. 90/2018 The Data Protection Authority considers it necessary to provide a general opinion on the legal environment of the media with regard to privacy, the limits of the agency's powers to do so as well as the points of view that the media need to consider when processing personal information for the benefit of journalism.

Privacy issued a general opinion on privacy and freedom of expression of the media during the period of validity of older laws, cf. the Agency's opinion of 4 July 2005 in the case no. 2005/381. It is now considered timely to issue a new opinion taking into account new legislation and the developments that have taken place in the situation and working environment of the media in recent years. In preparing the opinion has, among other things The Council of Europe's guidelines of 20 June 2018 on the media and privacy. [1]
II.
Legal environment

1.
Freedom of expression and privacy privacy

Freedom of expression and the right to privacy are among them rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland no. 33/1944 auk European Convention on Human Rights enshrined in Act no. 62/1994. According to Article 73 of the Constitution, every person has the right to express his or her thoughts, but must be held accountable in court. Of the first paragraph Article 10 It is clear from the Convention on Human Rights that freedom of expression also includes the right to have opinions, receive and pass on information and ideas at home and abroad without government intervention. Freedom of expression is especially enjoyed by the media rich protection because of the important role they play a democratic society. Censorship and other similar restrictions on freedom of expression may never be transposed into law, cf. Paragraph 2 Article 73 of the Constitution. However, it is possible set certain restrictions on freedom of expression, among other things due to rights or the reputation of others, provided that they are considered necessary and compatible democratic traditions, cf. Paragraph 3 same articles. Create, among other things, behind points of view on the right to privacy, which is protected by Article 71 of the Constitution.

The provisions of Article 71 of the Constitution, cf. also Article 8. Convention on Human Rights Europe, that everyone should enjoy the right to privacy, home and family includes a person's right to control his life and body and to enjoy peace about their way of life and private life, as stated in the explanatory memorandum on the provision. It also states that a realistic example of a field, where issues arising as to whether privacy is violated, is registration personal information about individuals. The article also includes Icelandic the state should avoid interfering with human privacy and personal affairs as well that it is obliged to set legal rules for the protection of individuals within each other their communication. This includes the obligation, among other things, to commit an offense individuals on the privacy rights of another individual punishable and to legislate clear rules on the collection, registration and processing of personal data. Such rules can now be found in Act no. 90/2018 and in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 which has legal force in this country. It should be borne in mind that human privacy is granted special criminal protection in XXV. chapter of the General Penal Code no. 19/1940 sem deals with defamation and invasion of privacy, including handling of personal information. In addition, the person who carries it may liability for unlawful injury to another person's honor or person pays damages to the person who has been wronged in accordance with paragraph 1 (b). Article 26 Torts Act no. 50/1993.

2.
Scope of Act no. 90/2018

Act no. 90/2018 and the regulation applies to the processing of personal information partial or complete automatic and for processing by methods other than automatic on personal information that is or is to become part of a register, cf. Paragraph 1 4. gr. of the Act. Personal information includes information about the person identified or personally identifiable individual and an individual is considered personally identifiable if it can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to its identifier or one or more factors that are characteristic of him, cf. 2. tölul. Article 3 of the Act and point 1. Article 4 of the Regulation. By processing is meant action or a series of operations in which personal information is processed, regardless of the processing automatic or not, cf. Number 4 Article 3 of the Act and point 2. Article 4 of the Regulation.

In 2.-7. mgr. Article 4 Act no. 90/2018 lays down exceptions from the substantive scope of the Act. Thus, for example, the law does not apply to treatment an individual's personal information relating solely to his or her personal or family interests or are intended solely for personal use, cf. Paragraph 2 Article 4 Then is in Article 5. provides for the connection of Act no. 90/2018 to other laws and in Art. of them provides for a link with freedom of expression. Is it especially the latter the article of law that is important in assessing the extent to which Act no. 90/2018 and the regulation applies to the activities of the media.
3.
Privacy Policy Freedom of expression -
Jurisdiction of the Data Protection Authority

According to the first paragraph. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 may, to the extent that it is necessary to harmonize views on the right to privacy on the one hand and freedom of expression, on the other hand, deviate from the provisions of the law and the regulation in for the benefit of the media, the arts or literature. Then in the 2nd paragraph. Article 6 provides that when personal information is processed solely for the purpose of journalism or For literary or artistic purposes, only the provisions of subparagraphs (a) and (d) shall apply. mgr. Article 5, 24., 26., 28., 29., 32., 40.-43. and Article 82. of the Regulation and Articles 48 and 51 of the Act. The principles of the Act and therefore apply to such processing of the Regulation on legality, fairness and transparency on the one hand and on reliability, however. Neither Article 9 Act no. 90/2018 on authorizations processing nor Article 11. of the Act on Additional Requirements for the Processing of Vulnerabilities personal information applies in those cases that will be considered covered the exceptional provisions of the second paragraph. Article 6 of the Act. Then the provisions of the law apply do not relate to the tasks of the Data Protection Authority and authority in such cases. That's right is, however, to mention that the nature of the case according to the closer provisions of Art. Act no. 90/2018 not for the personal data processing of subscribers only, customers, employees or will not otherwise be considered related journalism or the media as such.

The provisions of Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 is based on Article 85. of the Regulation which prescribes the obligation of Member States to harmonize by law the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalism. It is stated in a comment with Article 6. of the bill which became Act no. 90/2018 that was not aimed at changes in the scope of the provision and that the reasons for the exceptions can be argued among other things, refer to the explanations in the memorandum with the corresponding provisions of Article 5. fix Older Personal Data Protection Act no. 77/2000. It is clear that various provisions of the law and of the Regulation does not fully comply with the views on freedom of expression which is protected in Article 73. the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland and Article 10. European Convention on Human Rights. The purpose of the provision is to be a general indicator rule that implies that whenever this is attempted it is necessary to assess how the views of privacy and views on freedom of expression are weighed and come to a conclusion which is based on the normal balance of these views. Emphasis is placed on that the parties weigh this and evaluate to some extent themselves and receive a great deal of responsibility rest on them to that extent. The position of the Data Protection Authority in individual cases will be also for guidance as well as their operating and code of conduct parties covered by the provision can be of great significance. For that matter of the media, it is best to look at the Code of Ethics of the Icelandic Journalists' Association materials.

There are some nuances in the wording of paragraphs 1 and 2. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 although there are similar points of view behind them both. This will be discussed in more detail each paragraph below.

3.1.
Media - the first paragraph. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018

In the first paragraph. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 is referred to the media without the term is defined in the law. If we look at Act no. 38/2011, on the media, is a medium defined there as any kind of medium that on a regular basis means disseminating to the public editorial content. It is stated that to The media include newspapers and magazines, as well as their supplements, online media, audio and video media and other similar media. Media Committee supervises Act no. 38/2011 and also maintains a register of media. Í In many cases it is therefore clear whether the media according to the above This is a definition, but it can be assumed that cases may arise there in practice which casts doubt on whether this is the case. Consideration must be given to the aforesaid enumeration Act no. 38/2011 is not exhaustive as to what kind of media can considered media. In explaining the first paragraph. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 to this in particular, it matters whether the party concerned can fall under definition of Act no. 38/2011 with regard to the communication he provides but not only for the form of the communication, as the purpose of the provision is to harmonize views on the right to privacy on the one hand and on freedom of expression on the other. If the conclusion of the assessment is that it is a matter of the media, the provisions may be deviated from of the Act and the Regulation to the extent necessary to harmonize these views. From the wording of the first paragraph. Article 6 it can therefore be assumed that it also needs to be evaluated whether it is really necessary to deviate from the law and the regulation in favor of the above.
3.2.
Journalism - 2nd paragraph. Article 6 fix no. 90/2018

Unlike the provisions of the first paragraph. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018, which means that it is possible to deviate from the provisions of the Act and the Regulation as a whole, the second paragraph specifies. same articles the provisions that apply to the processing of personal data that takes place exclusively in for the sake of journalism. Provisions of the Act and the Regulation other than those contained therein listed do not therefore apply to such processing. The concept of journalism is not specifically defined in the law, regulation or interpretative documents but in Point 153 of the preamble to the Regulation states that with regard to importance the right to freedom of expression in any democratic society is necessary interpret terms, such as journalism, broadly in relation to that freedom. Then bears recent case law of the European Court of Justice, in particular its judgment in case no. C-345/17 (case of Sergei Buivids) from 14 February 2019, which means that an individual needs not to be a journalist, reporter or usually working for the media to publish his personal information on the Internet, for example on social media, is considered to be in the interest of journalism, as long as the purpose of the publication is disseminate information, views or ideas to the public and the subject matter public interest.
3.3.
Jurisdiction Privacy

The tasks of the Data Protection Authority are described in some detail in Article 39. fix no. 90/2018. According to the first paragraph. of the provision, the Data Protection Authority supervises implementation of the law, the regulation, special provisions in laws dealing with processing personal information and other rules on the subject. The Agency shall rule on whether the infringement against the law or regulation has taken place on the basis of complaints from registered persons or their representatives and may also raise issues own initiative, cf. Paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 39 Act no. 90/2018. Other projects of the Agency are listed in the 4th paragraph. same articles. It will not be considered that that list is exhaustive, as the Data Protection Authority shall, according to point 17. of the provision, perform other tasks related to the protection of personal data than them described in items 1-16. In the light of the wording of Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 and of the views behind the industry, however, it is clear that the authority Privacy is subject to certain restrictions when it comes to the media, especially when in the case of the processing of personal information for the benefit of journalism.

As stated above, the first paragraph of Art. Article 6 Act no. 90/2018 expects to deviate may be removed from the law and the regulation if necessary to harmonize views on the right to privacy and on freedom of expression for the benefit of the media, art and literature. When trying to push the boundaries of these constitutional guards rights, the Data Protection Authority has not considered itself competent to rule on those limits rather, it is considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the courts. Has complaints about expression in the media in general have been dismissed for that reason. Assessment of whether necessary is to deviate from Act no. 90/2018 and the regulation in favor of the above consequently also to the courts. In case of doubt, the Data Protection Authority may assessed whether it is a media in the light of the views expressed were traced in section 3.1. above. However, Privacy has either did not consider themselves authorized to rule on whether an individual has go beyond its constitutionally protected freedom of expression, provided that opinions and value judgments of one person about another not personal information about that person the latter. It is therefore uncertain whether the assessment of whether it is a case of the media has of great importance in practice, especially in the case of expression on the part of individuals.

It is clear that the provisions of Act no. 90/2018 on tasks and powers Privacy does not apply in the case of the processing of personal information which takes place solely for the benefit of journalism, cf. Paragraph 2 Article 6 of the Act. Because as a result, the agency is not authorized to issue rulings in cases there who complains about such processing and must therefore dismiss the complaints of that kind. However, certain obligations rest on the guarantors on their basis provisions that apply to the processing of personal information for the benefit of journalism. Jurisdiction However, privacy does not extend to directing instructions responsible for them but it is up to the courts to decide whether the disclosure of personal information has violated your privacy rights individuals. When looking at the Nordic countries' implementation in those countries legal provisions that have been enacted on the basis of Art. of the Regulation will it also considered it up to the courts to assess whether processing personal information is solely for the benefit of journalism and not for those institutions which oversees the implementation of legislation in the field of privacy. On this especially in the case of media coverage that has the role of provide information to the public. This assessment therefore also falls outside jurisdiction of the Data Protection Authority.

In the case of non-media entities, for example individuals or private companies, however, it may be that the agency can rule on the legitimacy of the processing of personal data by them. In such cases has not at least the effect of whether there is a very extensive processing of personal information, as was the case in the decision of the Data Protection Authority in case no. 2018/1507 on database with tax file information. A similar issue was discussed in court European Court of Human Rights of 27 June 2017 in case no. 931/13 which concerned Finnish companies' publication of information on the income of one third of the country's countries taxpayers. The Court noted that in view of the scope of the processing had the companies in question must be clear that it was not considered to serve journalism only and therefore did not fall under an exemption from the Finnish Privacy Act on the basis of freedom of expression.

As stated above, the responsible parties are responsible for the processing of personal information for the sake of journalism certain obligations according to Act no. 90/2018 and the regulation. Among the provisions that apply to such processing are Article 5 (a) and (d). of the Regulation, cf. Points 1 and 4 Paragraph 1 Article 8 of the Act. Will be in more detail refer to the provisions in question below.
4th
Legitimacy, fairness and transparency

This must be done when processing personal information that they are processed in a lawful, fair and transparent manner towards the others registered, cf. Article 5 (a) of the Regulation and point 1. Paragraph 1 Article 8 Act no. 90/2018.

Media and others involved In their work, journalists must comply with general laws and codes of conduct then apply. It is therefore necessary that they take the utmost care in the circumstances that arise to lead to an offense of some kind. This is how a journalist can happen not guilty of criminal conduct in gathering information for use in the news expect not to be prosecuted for that conduct. In the same way follow the provisions of Act no. 90/2018 and the regulation on journalism gilda. Therefore, a certain assessment of interests must always be taken into account when deciding whether a specific article should be written, in what way and how it is done gathering information in connection with it.

The demand for fairness and transparency of processing includes This includes respecting the rights of individuals such as right to information and access. The provisions of Act no. 90/2018 and the Regulation on However, the rights of individuals do not apply to the processing of personal data for the benefit of individuals journalism, as can be said of the media and other journalists would be made very difficult if they had to follow them at all. Nothing to pages will require a certain predictability for processing personal information for the benefit of journalism. It involves an individual who is discussed, in most cases it is necessary to be aware that work is being done news about him when information is obtained from him. In general nor should personal information about individuals be published in a news item without with the consent of the person concerned, unless the public interest in the publication outweighs the interests of the person concerned. Special care should be taken, if any to discuss sensitive personal information, such as health information or a very sensitive private matter of an individual. However, it will usually be allowed to publish information that an individual has made public in some way or which have previously been published with the consent of the person concerned, provided that the information is in the public interest.

The media however, a narrower stack is formatted when a review or photo is only displayed in them for the purpose of quenching the public's curiosity about the private affairs of others and in for profit.

Conduct- and ethics in the field of journalism play an important role and are urgent they are honored. In Iceland, this is mainly the Code of Ethics of the Icelandic Journalists' Association Of Iceland, but in Art. According to them, a journalist struggles to gather information and presentation as much as possible and show consideration in difficult matters. Hann Avoid anything that can cause innocent people, or people who are hurting tying, unnecessary pain or disgrace. Then it says in Article 4. that journalists should have rich in mind when the general security of citizens, the special interests of the public or the public interest requires publication of names. In accounts of court and criminal cases journalists should respect the principle of law that every person is considered innocent there to his guilt has been proven. These provisions of the Code include certain a demand for legitimacy, fairness and transparency. Their goals are therefore in line with the provisions Article 5 (a) of the Regulation and point 1. Paragraph 1 Article 8 Act no. 90/2018.

Furthermore, it can be said that the above principles are reflected in the first paragraph. Article 26 Act no. 38/2011 on the media, which prescribes, among other things, the provision of media shall respect human rights and equality in their work, as well as immunity privacy except the democratic role of the media service provider and the public's right to information requires otherwise. It is also stated that the media service provider must take care to fulfill requirements for objectivity and accuracy in news and news-related content and ensure that different perspectives are expressed, both men and women.

As has been stated, the media and others who work in journalism have considerable scope to work with personal information when the subject matter has a social or social value. However, each case needs to be assessed on a holistic basis the value of the subject matter, the nature of the information, the status of the person concerned and the context of the coverage or image. These issues will be briefly addressed below.
4.1.
Nature personal information

The nature of the personal information processed with news coverage is significant. Special care must be taken processing of personal information that is considered sensitive according to Act no. 90/2018 even the law makes greater demands on their processing. Sensitive personal information is including information on a person's health, pharmaceuticals, alcohol and drug use and sex and sexual behavior. Generally not considered it is justified to publish information on the health of individuals who are not public figures without the consent of those concerned. Publication of such information about public figures, for example politicians, can, however certain cases have a message to the public, such as if they affect capacity the person in question to carry out his work as he should.

Comparable views apply to grades and information on social problems. This is current information close to the individual and could perhaps be considered vulnerable in spite of that are not considered sensitive within the meaning of the law, but which is generally reasonable and it is natural to go undercover. Particular attention should be paid to whether any the purpose is to identify individuals or publish related images in such discussion, cf. also Article 4. Code of Ethics of the Icelandic Journalists' Association. Á this is especially true when dealing with the private affairs of individuals without with their consent or even against their will. Does not matter whether coverage is to some extent defamatory to the person concerned.

4.2.
Status of the person in question

Public figures, or public figures, can including politicians, government officials, celebrities business, artists, journalists and others who have been prominent and in the spotlight. An individual can be considered a public figure because of his position but also if he himself has stepped forward in the forum of public debate for some reason. The person in question does not necessarily have to be considered well-known society in order to be considered a public figure in this context. In general It is recognized that public figures must be subject to public scrutiny citizens and enjoys limited privacy in that respect. Can it be caused by their position in society and be conducive to restraining them or marked by the fact that they are seen as role models. Even may, as the case may be be justified in dealing with very sensitive issues of politicians and officials in relation to their duties and how they perform them. This does not, however, imply that public figures do not enjoy privacy long. The boundaries drawn by the media at any given time are based on value the topic for the public and the individual's relationship with that. Thus, public figures, just like other individuals, in general the right not to be photographed in places or conditions where they can expect to enjoy the peace of their privacy, such as in swimming pools, gyms as well as the person's home. Likewise, public figures the right not to address their sensitive private matters as irrelevant have for social interests or social debate. The media will be therefore always weigh and evaluate the value of the proposed coverage in this relationship. Finally, it is not a given that it is normal to treat in the same way persons connected with a public figure, whether in the case of relatives, friends or others.

Icelandic courts have in their practice repeatedly emphasized the broad freedom of expression of the media under Article 73. of the Constitution when the discussion concerns an issue that is relevant to a public debate and focuses on to a public figure. Thus, the right of the media can outweigh the right of the individual concerned to enjoy the protection of personal information about himself according to Article 71 of the Constitution. This is in line with developments in the implementation of the Human Rights Court Europe on the limits of freedom of expression and privacy under Articles 8 and 10. Convention on Human Rights Europe. There have been a number of judgments in this country in recent years. Sem an example is the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 March 2019, no. 29/2018 in the case of Glitnir HoldCo ehf. against Útgáfufélagið Stundinn and Reykjavík Media ehf. It was reiterated the right to publicly discuss the private affairs of elected politicians would be more spacious than otherwise, in addition to which the position of the defendants would need to be taken into account the issue as a media and the role they play in a democratic society. Then you can mention the judgment of the Supreme Court of 24 November 2011, no. 100/2011 where tried on goals freedom of expression according to Article 73 Article 71 of the Constitution and privacy protection. in media coverage of financial matters a well-known professional in football, both his investments and salary income. Although in the case of private matters, it was considered that the discussion concerned a subject that could be relevant errands to the public and to curtailment on the freedom of the media to cover these financial issues could not be considered necessary in a democratic society. However, the freedom of the media in this regard is not unlimited. Thus, the courts have considered the protection of personal data of nationally known persons individuals, who can not be considered a part of the general public debate and should not not a message to the public, shall outweigh the freedom of the media to publish such information. An example of this can be seen in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 1 March 2007, no. 278/2006 on videos of the musician Bubba Morthens.

As previously described and clearly seen in the above issues are a solution on how to find the balance between two constitutionally protected rights, privacy and freedom of expression courts but not the Data Protection Authority. It follows, among other things, from that an exception made within the scope of Act no. 90/2018 against freedom of expression, including vis-à-vis the media and the processing of personal data in for the sake of journalism.

4.3.
Context coverage

The context in which personal information is stored placed in matters of considerable importance in assessing whether processing is fair towards the person concerned, not least in the case of photos. See in the case of a matter-of-fact discussion and, provided that a personal analysis if an individual is necessary, the publication of a picture of the person in question would normally be considered legitimate. The nature of the case will be the publication of opportunity photos taken public space is also not considered unfair or unreasonable even if they are individuals who can be identified. Publication of an image of a particular however, a person who is only engaged in private affairs may be considered unfair if the imagery serves no objective purpose and the person has not given their consent for the publication. Do not own this at least if there is no connection between the image and the subject matter. Then an image will not be separated from the accompanying text. Even though image display alone can be considered fair and relevant can caption led to the coverage as a whole being considered irrelevant, among otherwise due to misleading or unfair comments. The same applies if the caption leads to the conclusion that a personally identifiable individual is related to the topic of the news without actually being related to it. Need the media should therefore be careful when publishing images of personally identifiable information individuals with the news if their consent has not been obtained the publication.

5.
The rule of reliability

Personal information must be reliable and updated as needed. Personal information shall be deleted or corrected without delay which are unreliable or imperfect based on the purpose of their processing, cf. Article 5 (d) of the Regulation and point 4. Paragraph 1 Article 8 Act no. 90/2018. Personal information must thus correspond to the reality behind it or an objective assessment based on the reality at hand. When coverage causes inconvenience and inconvenience to the person in question, such as often unavoidable, the information must be required to reflect the reality behind them in an even more secure way than otherwise and that they are not presented in a misleading manner. This is especially true in the case of sensitive private matters. Furthermore, unreliable or incorrect information should be provided correct. In the case of information that may be of concern to those concerned damages must be corrected immediately. Neither Act no. 90/2018 nor the regulation contain instructions on formal requirements for correction, but the nature of the case according to which the correction must take into account the original medium of publication. Have news for example published on a web medium is in most cases sufficient to correct incorrect or incomplete information that appeared in it on the same web media. However, corrections must be required to be included sufficiently conspicuous and that the incorrect or incomplete information is deleted, as far as possible with regard to the form in which they were published.


III.
Conclusion

In view of the wording of Article 6 Act no. 90/2018, on personal data protection and processing, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and interpretative documents, it is clear that the processing of personal information by the media and other parties in favor of journalism fall largely outside its jurisdiction Privacy. The institution is therefore not competent to rule in a binding manner stopped whether the processing of personal information in the media and, as the case may be in the interest of journalism complies with the provisions of the law and the regulation. Nothing to their specific provisions on processing for the benefit of journalism apply Icelandic media and all those who work in journalism in accordance with them. Finally, it is up to the courts to assess whether the media have gone beyond the limits of their freedom of expression or become criminals to the provisions of Act no. 90/2018 and the Regulation or, as the case may be, other provisions fix.

Í Privacy, October 5, 2020

Björg Thorarensen
chairman

Ólafur Garðarsson Björn Geirsson

Vilhelmína Haraldsdóttir Þorvarður Kári Ólafsson


[1] Guidelines on Safeguarding Privacy in the Media, accessible at https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/-/guidelines-on-safeguarding-privacy-in-the-med-1