By Padraic Halpin
DUBLIN (Reuters) – Ireland bolstered its powerful data regulator’s ability to stop the sharing of information during its inquiries into global tech companies amid criticism from opposition parties, privacy activists and non-governmental organisations.
Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) is the European Union’s lead regulator of many of the world’s largest technology companies due to their EU headquarters being based in Ireland, and has levied billions of euros worth of fines under the bloc’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), introduced in 2018.
The government late last week amended a proposed piece of legislation that was nearing completion in order, it said, to protect disclosures made during the DPC’s lengthy probes from being made public without the regulator’s permission.
Austrian privacy campaigner Max Schrems, who has brought a number of successful complaints against tech firms, had called on lawmakers to vote against what he described as a “gag order” intended to hinder public discourse and reporting of DPC probes.
James Brown, junior minister at Ireland’s justice ministry, said that there had been a misinterpretation of the scope of the amendment and “misconceived arguments” against it. The DPC had sought the powers in order to ensure fair procedure, he said.
“To be clear nothing in this amendment will prevent a complainant from speaking out about the nature of their data privacy complaint. There is no impact on journalists and no impact on the DPC’s obligations under the GDPR,” he told parliament.
The bill was passed by 73 votes to 60.
Irish Council of Civil Liberties senior fellow Johnny Ryan said the minister’s statement did not alleviate its concerns that the DPC would have broad powers to designate information as confidential and “muzzle” some of its critics.
The European Consumer Organisation, European Digital Rights group and Amnesty International also spoke out against the bill.
Opposition politicians also criticized the introduction of the amendment so late in the process, giving little time for scrutiny and just one hour for debate.
“Poor process produces poor results. This is an appalling way to do business,” said Catherine Murphy of the Social Democrats party.
(Reporting by Padraic Halpin; editing by Grant McCool)
