A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems system. Justice Sykes, while discussing the right to privacy in Jamaica generally, focuses much of his analysis on the concept of choice.217 In finding the system unconstitutional, Justice Sykes cites the improper compulsory taking of biometric information from individuals.218 Justice Batts echoes this view, finding that the right to privacy is violated partly because of the absence of a right to opt out of the system. 219 Justice Batts also finds the provision of the system requiring the establishment of a national database for the “collection and collation of identity information and demographic information regarding registrable individuals” constitutional, where the data included in the database is voluntarily given, although the system as a whole is rejected.220 Each of these facets of the Jamaican Supreme Court’s analysis points to the particular importance of consent in the constitutionality of an identity system. c) The Mauritian Supreme Court highlights the absence of sufficient safeguards for the use of fingerprint data stored as part of the Mauritian national identity system.221 In particular, the court isolates the provisions of the Mauritian Data Protection Act, which create exceptions to the requirement that an individual’s express consent is obtained prior to the processing of personal biometric data.222 The relevant data protection regime would allow for the sharing of data without consent to many actors, including law enforcement, artists, healthcare providers, financial firms, and lawyers.223 The absence of individual consent for such access, in 217 See Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(A)(10). 218 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(B)(52). 219 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 349. 220 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 348. 221 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 29–34. 222 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 32. 223 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 32. 51