‘The information commissioner has criticised the “antiquated process” that led to Facebook getting hold of Cambridge Analytica’s servers before the UK regulator itself, and renewed calls for an international approach to data privacy to tackle the emerging threat of data havens.’
The Guardian, 24th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Leanne Francis comments on the ICO’s new guidance on handling data subject access requests from employees.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Court of Appeal in London has strengthened the tools available to rights holders when seeking to control and exploit commercially valuable data within sport and set out the pitfalls for third parties who seek to do the same without clear, unambiguous approval from a rights holder.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Ever since the Information Commissioner issued British Airways with a notice proposing to impose a massive fine of £183.39m for a data breach incident in 2018, we have all be waiting with bated breath to see how that process would conclude. A fine at that level would have been the largest ever issued by a data protection regulator in Europe, and would have dwarfed the eye-watering €50m proposed by the French data protection authority CNIL in respect of Google’s advertisement personalisation practices, affecting millions of French citizens. The prospect of BA, a corporate victim of a criminal cyber-attack affecting around 400,000 people’s (mostly payment-card) data, being subject to fine in excess of 4x as large certainly grabbed the headlines.’
Panopticon, 19th October 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Samantha Smith looks at how organisations can handle the data protection challenges of remote working.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The coronavirus pandemic created an impetus for the legal world to finally begin accepting digitalisation of processes, moving away from the traditional paper process to an online version. The immigration process is already faced with a myriad of concerns which leaves the applicant in a weak position, and most often, with a lack of funds to cover their costs. The Home Office’s inability to train and effectively manage applications, outsource services to dubious third-party contractors has been exacerbated further by the haphazard application of online processes which do not match the needs of the immigration process. Despite the fact that online applications are easier to complete for legal representatives a number of issues have arisen as a result of this sudden change.’
EIN Blog, 21st September 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The UK government is considering whether to allow non-profit organisations to make data protection regulatory complaints and bring court claims on behalf of individuals without their consent.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th September 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV cameras capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Singh LJ) allowed the appeal of the civil liberties campaigner, Edward Bridges, against the decision of the Divisional Court which had dismissed his claim for judicial review of South Wales Police Force’s use of live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”).’
39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘You have to admire the ingenuity of lawyers. Who would have thought that the GDPR could be a tool to try and force the Home Office to allow a deported overstayer with a lengthy criminal record back into the UK to conduct an in-person appeal? Not the Court of Appeal for a start in Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1032.’
Panopticon, 11th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The High Court handed down judgment on Friday in Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam), the first recorded judgment concerning journalistic access to the court file in public law family proceedings. The case is likely to be of interest to media lawyers generally, and throws up potential complications surrounding the scope and extent of the privacy rights of children vis-à-vis their parents.’
Panopticon, 7th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A British victim of trafficking is bringing a case against the home secretary, Priti Patel, arguing that her department unlawfully accessed personal information including details of her intimate thoughts.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’
Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘A comprehensive strategic review of the various appellate mechanisms for rights exercisable under the Data Protection Act is “arguably long overdue”, an Upper Tribunal judge has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024