‘The UK government broke the law in rolling out its test-and-trace programme without a full assessment of the privacy implications, the Department of Health and Social Care has admitted after a legal challenge.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is a common trope of media lawyers that defamation claims have been on the wane since the Defamation Act 2013, and that data protection law might be the way to fill the gap. (We at Panopticon scorn such arriviste tendencies.) And in Warby J, there is a willing champion of alignment of legal principles between defamation and data protection. He particularly emphasised the read-across in the context of complaints of inaccurate data processing in NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (see here) and he has done so again in his very interesting judgment in Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 1812 (QB).’
Panopticon, 20th July 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Hundreds of pubs across England have reopened their doors after months of lockdown – with a handful having to close again after punters reported testing positive for Covid-19.’
Each Other, 8th July 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘When the First-tier Tribunal decides an information rights appeal and finds in favour of the requestor, who has the responsibility for enforcing any non-compliance with that judgment? Is it the FTT, or is the Information Commissioner? In an interesting judgment of Judge Jacobs in Moss v Information Commissioner & Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal has held that it is the FTT.’
Panopticon, 2nd July 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A solicitor who served proceedings on a council by post two days after lockdown had gone into effect showed “poor judgement”, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 29th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Two otherwise unrelated cases were listed together to provide the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Vice – President Lord Justice Fulford, with an opportunity to consider various issues relating to the retention, inspection, copying, disclosure and deletion of the electronic records held by prosecution witnesses.’
Park Square Barristers, 26th June 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Automated facial recognition technology that searches for people in public places breaches privacy rights and will “radically” alter the way Britain is policed, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘PHG, linked with Cambridge University, provides independent advice and evaluations of biomedical and digital innovations in healthcare. PHG has recently published a series of reports exploring the interpretability of machine learning in this context. The one I will focus on in this post is the report considering the requirements of the GDPR for machine learning in healthcare and medical research by way of transparency, interpretability, or explanation. Links to the other reports are given at the end of this post.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Rape investigations are being systematically dropped after victims refuse to hand over their mobile phones for analysis, an investigation has found.’
The Guardian, 17th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The police have an important role to play at the time of a pandemic when social distancing and self-isolation are so important. However, any action they take must be proportionate, transparent and, above all, lawful. Anything else will erode public confidence in the police and make their job more difficult.’
Law Society, 15th June 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court is to review a Court of Appeal decision to allow a £3bn representative action against Google for misuse of private data to go ahead.’
Litigation Futures, 10th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘For years, prosecutors and defenders have acted in the confident knowledge that obtaining certain types of important electronic evidence from overseas in time for use at trial has been very difficult. That may now change: the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 (“the Act”) received the Royal Assent on 12 February 2019. The provisions of the Act came into force on 9 October 2019.’
6KBW College Hill, 25th May 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘This post discusses the impact of the new CLOUD Act international data sharing regime on the UK’s death penalty assurances policy. This regime—named after its enabling US legislation, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act—is due to come into force in July 2020 following the signing of a bilateral US–UK agreement in October 2019 (US-UK Agreement). It provides a quicker alternative for law enforcement seeking access to electronic data overseas, beyond the existing mutual legal assistance (MLA) process, which operates through MLA treaties (MLATs) and other mechanisms. However, while the CLOUD Act regime has an admirable aim, its implementation weakens the UK’s existing death penalty assurances policy and thus risks exposing the UK and others to significant liability, as discussed below.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Privacy campaigners are preparing a legal challenge to the NHS’s coronavirus test-and-trace programme as concerns grow about the amount of contact data that will be collected and retained by government.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will stand down audit work, issue fewer fines and generally use fewer formal powers against organisations that are struggling to meet data protection standards as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court recently ruled that Morrison Supermarkets was not vicariously liable for a data breach committed maliciously by a former employee who disclosed employee payroll data online (WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12). The judgment clarified that the test for vicarious liability is whether the acts committed by the employee were ‘so closely connected’ with the acts that they were authorised to carry out by their employer that such acts ‘can fairly and properly be regarded as done’ by the employee acting in the ordinary course of his or her employment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th May 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A primary school breached the Data Protection Act 1988 and Human Rights Act 1998 and unlawfully misused the personal information of a child with Down’s Syndrome and her mother, the High Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government must legally swear to delete all the data it captures using the NHS Covid-19 contact-tracing app, a committee of MPs and peers has urged.’
The Guardian, 15th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024