‘The UK government has tested whether internet users’ “online activity history”, including data from social networks, can be used to verify their identity when they use online public services.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘New UK surveillance laws will restrict access to people’s internet connection records (ICRs) further than was originally proposed after amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill were approved in the UK parliament.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A European Court of Justice ruling could deal a “serious blow” to Theresa May’s most prized piece of legislation, campaigners have said.’
The Independent, 19th July 2016
Source; www.independent.co.uk
‘Peers have issued a serious warning that the government’s proposed “snooper’s charter” law could endanger journalists and their sources.’
The Guardian, 12th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Government has unveiled plans for age verification on porn websites in its new Digital Economy Bill, set to come into force in 2017.’
The Independent, 7th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘As we all reel in shock at today’s news, thoughts will inevitably turn to how our impending divorce from Europe will impact on the sphere of data protection. Our own data protection laws have of course been profoundly shaped by Europe. Until yesterday, many had assumed that Europe’s control over our data protection laws would in due course become even more intensive, as we journeyed into a world in which the EU Data Protection Regulation reigned supreme across Europe. However, the clocks have stopped. The Regulation is not to become law in the UK. The future of data protection law is therefore necessarily shrouded in mystery.’
Employment Blog, 24th June 2016
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘The new rules limiting the recovery of the costs of civil court action to a “proportionate” amount may prevent successful parties from recovering costs that would otherwise have been reasonable, a senior costs judge has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Senior Costs Judge has demonstrated the harsh impact of the post-Jackson proportionality rule – along with providing some guidance on how to apply it – after halving the costs of a privacy action that he had deemed reasonable after a line-by-line assessment.’
Litigation Futures, 6th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Giving the intelligence and security services a right to collect data about citizens in bulk is not “inherently incompatible” with people’s right to privacy, a UK parliamentary committee has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Is the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v NGN [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] All ER (D) 135 (May), as Lord Toulson suggests, out of touch with reality? Sara Mansoori, barrister at Matrix Chambers, considers the wider consequences of the case and suggests that even when information is in the public domain, the law of privacy can prevent repetition of that information where such repetition can cause unwarranted distress.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th May 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk
‘The Government is coming under pressure to justify why it imprisons pregnant women and their babies, after a report suggested that the practice can cause significant harm to infants and mothers without benefiting public safety.’
The Independent, 26th May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘I recently wrote on these pages criticising celebrity injunctions taken out to gag English newspapers, even when the stories were freely reported in other countries. The expensive celebrity game reminded me, I wrote, of the Spycatcher farce and the series of trials during which Margaret Thatcher tried to prevent British newspapers from publishing extracts from Peter Wright’s MI5 memoir, despite the book being freely obtainable outside England.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd May 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Perhaps for the first time – and almost certainly for the last, since he is about to retire – Lord Toulson is the hero of the press. As the sole dissenting judge in the Supreme Court ruling on the current celebrity injunction of speculation, he would have allowed the claimant’s name to be published – at least by news organisations that were prepared to run the risk of paying damages for breaching the claimant’s privacy.’
The Guardian, 19th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The supreme court has extended the interim privacy injunction preventing identification of a celebrity who has been involved in a three-way sexual encounter.’
The Guardian, 19th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘An injunction banning the naming of a celebrity involved in an alleged extra-marital relationship should stay in place, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 19th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The supreme court is set to deliver its long-awaited decision on a privacy injunction preventing identification of a celebrity said to have taken part in a three-way sexual encounter.’
The Guardian, 19th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The supreme court will on Thursday deliver its long-awaited decision on a privacy injunction preventing identification of a celebrity involved in a three-way sexual encounter.’
The Guardian, 16th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A UK law enforcement agency asked a court to force alleged hacker Lauri Love to reveal passwords for computers they confiscated. The Court said no. The problem? That would bypass human rights safeguards UK Parliament built into investigatory powers laws.’
RightsInfo, 11th May 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025