UK's Tax Authority To Delete Five Million Biometric Voice Records Because it Did Not Have Clear Consent From Its Customers (zdnet.com) 47
The UK's tax authority is to delete the biometric voice records of five million people because it did not have clear consent from its customers to have those files. From a report: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) uses the Voice ID biometric voice security system to make it easier for callers to pass its security processes when discussing their account. It says using the system will reduce the time it takes to speak to an advisor and will help prevent anyone else accessing accounts. But the UK's data privacy watchdog the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) said that HMRC failed to give customers sufficient information about how their biometric data would be processed and failed to give them the chance to give or withhold consent. "This is a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation," the ICO said.
Steve Wood, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: "We welcome HMRC's prompt action to begin deleting personal data that it obtained unlawfully. Our investigation exposed a significant breach of data protection law -- HMRC appears to have given little or no consideration to it with regard to its Voice ID service." Under the GDPR, biometric data is considered special category information and is subject to stricter conditions.
Steve Wood, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: "We welcome HMRC's prompt action to begin deleting personal data that it obtained unlawfully. Our investigation exposed a significant breach of data protection law -- HMRC appears to have given little or no consideration to it with regard to its Voice ID service." Under the GDPR, biometric data is considered special category information and is subject to stricter conditions.
Tax Authorities don't have customers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not trying to make an "all taxes are bad" sort of argument, but seriously. Let's at least be semantically honest. A tax collection agency deals with citizens - or subjects. It does not have customers.
Re: (Score:2)
TRUTH!
Re: (Score:1)
And it's only got 575% of the murder rate of the UK!
IRS is like that and they can be rude (Score:2)
I one called them about some small error that reduced my refund an bit and they where snappy and rude.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizenship is largely irrelevant. HMRC deals with people who are resident for tax purposes in the UK, or have income or assets in the UK. If you want a single word then "customers" is as good as any. Even "victims" doesn't necessarily apply to all of them.
Not "Customers" (Score:1)
Those are subjects not 'customers'.
Re: (Score:2)
They paid at gunpoint.
And who paid? (Score:2)
Then they paid again to have all that stuff erased.
No mention of any additional infrastructure cost to do this, or any additional people hired to do it either.
And the citizen/subject's recourse is? Will there be a refund, will they also pay to incarcerate the lawbreakers?
(I'd surely be incarcerated for doing this - how about you?)
Sounds like they are catching up with the USA.
I'm sure they will erase it. (Score:2)
1984 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Most of those cameras are privately owned.
Maybe private owned but the police just demand access to them so they may as well be owned by the police for all it matters. I have cctv on my house. On three occasions the police have demanded access to it and become downright aggressive if you don't invite them in straight away Last time a sargeant threw a tantrum, throwing doors open and stomping around because I couldn't give him access to the recorder just this moment (I offered to supply it on a USB later) because I'd just had a *power failure*. CCT
#Asshole treated like asshole, news at 11 (Score:2, Interesting)
"and become downright aggressive" = Totally 100% legal. Did they handcuff you and take your CCTV footage anyway? Nope. They asked for your compliance, you didn't give it, they saw you as an obstruction to their investigation.
So they treated you as such, you are an asshole. The old system still applies, asshole. But they didn't break the law in so doing. You think that's an egregious case of police abuse, eh? Lol.
You must be a white middle aged male. Don't come crying when your house gets burgled, y
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the government is a bit behind here. Banks were doing this first, they just tried to get on the band wagon.
I declined to set up voice print ID with my banks.
Re: (Score:1)
Any person with a UK accent detected at war globally will have their voice print searched for everywhere in the UK for years.
People returning from any war used some communications system they had to trust, got fooled into thinking was fully "encrypted", used to call back to the UK with.
The GCHQ got every use of voice communications globally looking for anything connected with the UK in any way.
Use any communications system in the UK again today and be disc
Consent is the key here (Score:2)
How many people are mentioned on Facebook who never consented to having their private information disseminated?