‘The introduction of the controversial draft Data Retention Regulations 2014 has already been discussed by my colleague Robin Hopkins in his excellent post last month. The Regulations now have the force of law, having come into force on 31 July 2014 – see the Regulations here. In his post, Robin made the point that, following the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland, there were two methods for curtailing the infringement of privacy rights presupposed by the existing communications data retention (CDR) regime: either cut back on the data retention requirements provided for under the legislation, so as generally to limit the potential for interference with privacy rights, or introduce more robust safeguards with a view to ensuring that any interference with privacy rights is proportionate and otherwise justified. The Government, which has evidently opted for the latter approach in the new Regulations, will now need to persuade a somewhat sceptical public that the safeguards which have been adopted in the legislation strike the right balance as between the protection of privacy rights on the one hand and the imperative to support criminal law enforcement functions on the other.’
Panopticon, 5th August 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Innes v Information Commissioner and another [2014] EWCA 1086; [2014] WLR (D) 358
‘Under section 11(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 a claimant requesting information under section 1(1) of the 2000 Act was entitled to stipulate what software format should be used when the information sought was provided to him.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Google knows what you’re looking for. Facebook knows what you like. Sharing is the norm, and secrecy is out. But what is the psychological and cultural fallout from the end of privacy?’
The Guardian, 3rd August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In the usual end of term rush, the Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Innes v Information Commissioner [2014] EWCA Civ 1086 on the provision in section 11 FOIA which allows a requestor to express a preference for communication by a particular means, so long as it is reasonably practicable to give effect to the preference. The issue in Innes was that Mr Innes had requested certain school admissions information and had sent a further email shortly afterwards asking for that information to be supplied to him in Excel format. The ICO, the FTT and the Upper Tribunal had all ruled against Mr Innes, in part relying on the Scottish decision of Glasgow City Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2009] CSIH 73; [2010] SC 125.’
Panopticon, 1st August 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A former aide to George Galloway MP who admitted obtaining personal data illegally has received a 12-month conditional discharge.’
BBC News, 31st July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Victims of spam message companies could find it easier to win compensation under plans backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office’
Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In a blog post on Monday I expressed concerns about the lack of time for proper scrutiny of the changes to be brought in by the DRIP Bill. Towards the end of that blog I expressed puzzlement at a change to be made to the definition of “telecommunications system” in RIPA. This definition is central to the scheme of RIPA and is the basis for many of the powers therein.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th July 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘The government has come under fire in the Lords over emergency legislation giving the security services access to people’s phone and internet records.’
BBC News, 16th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Controversial emergency surveillance legislation has cleared the Commons after an extended sitting and angry exchanges alleging an abuse of parliament.’
The Guardian, 16th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The unveiling last Thursday of a a draft bill on surveillance powers that is to be rushed through Parliament brought to mind the story of the Dutch boy who finds a hole in a dyke on his way to school and puts his finger in it to plug the leak until help arrives to shore it up. The legislation is said to be necessary to plug what the Government regards as holes in the regime of surveillance and investigatory powers pending a full review. The fact that the bill is titled the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill – the “DRIP” bill – may mean I am not the first person to draw the analogy. But the analogy may not be entirely apt. An examination of the DRIP Bill reveals that it is not addressing little holes in the regime but in fact profoundly important and substantial issues.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th July 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘FOCUS: The new law proposed by the UK government to ensure that telecoms companies keep communications data for a year could be challenged in the same way as the court-revoked law it is replacing.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The biggest domestic legal challenge to UK intelligence agencies accessing the mass data harvested by the US National Security Agency (NSA) begins on Monday, and may be one reason behind the government’s decision to introduce emergency surveillance laws into parliament next week, campaigners have suggested.’
The Guardian, 11th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A tribunal is to hear a legal challenge by civil liberty groups against the alleged use of mass surveillance programmes by UK intelligence services.’
BBC News, 14th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Theresa May is continuing to push for a change in the law to give police and security services the power to access email and social media.’
BBC News, 25th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The spamming industry is a decidedly irritating but sadly almost unavoidable feature of our networked world. There is no question but that spamming (i.e. the sending of unsolicited direct marketing electronic communications) constitutes an unlawful invasion of our privacy (see further regs 22-23 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2426) (PECR), implemented under EU Directive 2002/21/EC). The question is what can be done to stop it, particularly given that individual citizens will typically not want to waste their time litigating over the odd spam email or text?’
Panopticon, 19th June 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘National laws on protecting privileged legal communications are outdated and need to be brought into the digital age, according to the body representing Europe’s lawyers.’
Legal Futures, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Highly confidential documents that were subject to legal professional privilege (LPP) did not lose this status when they were emailed by a party to his girlfriend, who then forwarded them to and accessed them through her work email account, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th April 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc: [2014] EWHC 1156 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 173
‘The terms of section 12(a) of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreement (Multi Currency-Cross Border Form) (1992 ed) were mandatory and any notice purportedly served pursuant to those provisions had to have been given by the means therein prescribed, and by reference to and in accordance with the contact information provided in part 4 of the schedule to the agreement, subject to any amendment properly notified pursuant to section 12(b). If the schedule did not provide certain information necessary for service by a prescribed method, the contract was to be construed as limiting the prescribed methods to those expressly permitted by the schedule unless and until the missing information was notified under section 12(b) or the contract was formally amended.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An “insensitive” father banned by the courts from seeing his children has been warned by a judge not to type his emails to them in capitals – because it looks like he is shouting.’
Daily Telegraph, 14th April 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025