Journalists and Officials Differ in Views on Personal Data

Some officials tend to abuse the Law on Personal Data Protection, which affects the work of journalists. It has been acknowledged by most participants of the public debate “Personal Data: Between Protection of Officials and Limited Access to Information” that was held on Monday, February 13. The event was part of a big campaign to support investigative journalism launched on January 26 this year by a number of NGOs dealing with media and human rights. The debate was attended by representatives of the said non-governmental advocates of media and law, along with lawyers, deputies and members of the National Personal Data Protection Center.

Investigative journalists presented cases showing that certain public institutions interpret the Law on Personal Data Protection in an abusive manner. Thus, Cornelia Cozonac, President of the Center for Investigative Journalism of Moldova (CIJM), brought forward a case that had been lost by CIJM, inclusively at the Supreme Court of Justice. It concerned an information request by CIJM that had been turned down by the President’s office. Journalists asked for biographies of people decorated with national awards; however, the President’s office rejected the request on the grounds that these were personal data. The number of refusals to provide information, Cornelia Cozonac says, has increased in the last two years. “We journalists are denied information by authorities almost every day, as they invoke personal data protection laws”.

The same opinion is shared by Alina Radu, director of the Ziarul de Gardă. She commented on the changes made by the Ministry of Justice to the national courts’ portal, limiting public access to information concerning court session agendas and rulings since the search option using the name of a party in action has been excluded.

MPs Adrian Lebedinschi (Socialist Party of the Republic of Moldova), Sergiu Sarbu (Democrat Party of Moldova), Lilian Carp (Liberal Party), and Liliana Palihovici, Vice-president of the Parliament, objected that the media, in their turn, sometimes abuse of certain data acquired by them. In reply journalists explained that in case they can no longer obtain information they need there will be more and more poorly documented materials appearing in the media, which are based on approximate and unverified information instead of reliable facts.

An aggravation of the situation in this regard was also attested by other representatives of media-related NGOs. Petru Macovei, Executive Director of the Independent Press Association, mentioned: “In my view, the source of the issue is the National Personal Data Protection Center that is used by the nation’s leadership to harass media that only wish to produce well documented materials”. Petru Macovei considers the current government “is drawn to seeing journalists dragged through courts”.

In the same line of thought, Nadine Gogu, Executive Director of the Independent Journalism Center, pointed out that there are, in fact, two problems: the law itself and its interpretation. If certain provisions can be interpreted it means they are badly formulated. While journalists know they can acquire information for journalistic purposes under Article 10, officials particularly rely on two words used therein – “but” and “or”. Thus, the article states: “Provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 8 do not apply to situations when personal data are processed solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes, if it concerns data that were disclosed voluntarily…”  “It is important that we find common ground and work together to improve the law. After all, we need a better law so that these officials cannot continue to hide behind certain words like “if” and “or””, Nadine Gogu concluded.

Liliana Palihovici, Vice-president of the Parliament, remembered the Legislative had once registered a bill on amending the Law on Personal Data Protection, which was however withdrawn. If a need is felt to amend the law, she says, it would be useful to form a working group consisting of both officials and journalists, so the final document satisfies all parties and leaves no space for interpretation.

Sergiu Bozian, deputy head of a department of the National Personal Data Protection Center, explained the difference between the Law on Access to Information and the Law on Personal Data Protection: the former entitles any citizen to request information which the supplier must provide, while the latter, namely Article 10, requires that a journalist justifies their request for information. At the same time Sergiu Bozian explained that the current interface of the portal instante.justice.md is only “a preliminary solution” and a working group is to be formed soon to analyze the problem and find a solution that will work best. “At the moment the website is in transition, since the judicial system has been reorganized. At the technical level, that is. No decision was made on leaving the website in this form. It is a preliminary solution. The final decision will be made later by a working group involving the civil society. Technically, it’s impossible to join four courts within a single website, that’s the idea”, Sergiu Bozian added.

At the end of the public debates a declaration was read out through which the civil society and independent media request the authorities not to restrict access to information.