A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems the system to prevent data profiling. 252 Justice Batts similarly determines that the system lacks requisite safeguards appropriately balancing the benefits of disclosure for security purposes with the right to privacy.253 Inadequate safeguards that Justice Batts identifies include no opportunity for a hearing,254 broad wording of conditions under which data sharing is allowed,255 and no law regulating the time period for which data will be retained.256 Justice Sykes also states that heightened safeguards are necessary when data can be used for police purposes.257 b) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment restricts the extent to which data can be shared for the purpose of protecting national security. The majority seeks to accomplish this restriction by requiring that the determination for when data is to be shared is made by an officer of a higher rank than included in the enacting legislation’s provisions.258 Additionally, the majority requires a judicial officer’s involvement in the process for determining when data can be disclosed for this purpose.259 60. Government authorities must be transparent about the scope and use of their data processing activities. An important element of the rule of law is judicial oversight – an element that takes on particular significance in the implementation of identity systems given their wide-ranging implications on individuals rights and liberties. Judicial oversight is necessary if data collected or stored pursuant a national identity system is to be shared. 252 Opinion of Justice Palmer Hamilton, Julian J. Robinson v. The Attorney General of Jamaica, Claim No. 2018HCV01788, ¶ 375 (2019). 253 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 365–66. 254 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 366. 255 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 365. 256 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 366. 257 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(B)(67). 258 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 447 at 559. 259 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 447 at 559. 58