‘Data recording what websites internet users have visited will need to be retained for up to 12 months by telecommunication service providers under proposed new surveillance laws that have been outlined by the UK government.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th October 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A former prison officer has been jailed for 12 months for selling stories about George Michael’s time behind bars to the Sun.’
The Guardian, 3rd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A new law setting out what powers the UK state will have to monitor communications between citizens is set to be unveiled. How will it work?’
BBC News, 4th November 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The key elements of the snooper’s charter, including the bulk collection and storage for 12 months of everyone’s personal data, tracking their use of the web, phones and social media, will remain firmly in place when the government publishes its new investigatory powers bill on Wednesday.’
The Guardian, 2nd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The home secretary, Theresa May, should not seek to give the intelligence agencies full access to an individual’s web browsing history, Labour and the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg are both likely to say when the government publishes its draft investigatory powers bill on Wednesday.’
The Guardian, 2nd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This week, the Court of Appeal is grappling with a difficult and important question: how do you value an invasion of privacy? In other words, where someone has suffered a breach of their privacy rights, how do you go about determining the compensation they should receive?’
Panopticon, 20th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The investigatory powers bill will give greater powers to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, according to reports.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st October 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in W, X, Y and Z v Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for the Home Department and British Medical Association [2015] EWCA Civ 1034 offers rich pickings for information lawyers. It deals with the status of information about medical treatment; it looks at the scope of common law protection for private and confidential information generally; and it illustrates how wider public law concepts can apply in the field of information sharing.’
Panopticon, 16th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during September 2015.’
Family Law Week, 11th October 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A pact that helped the tech giants and others send personal data from the EU to the US has been ruled invalid.’
BBC News, 6th October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In the Matter of C (A Child) (Application by Dr X and Y) [2015] EWFC 79 involved, in the words of Munby J, an unusual and indeed unprecedented application. It pitted the right to defend one’s reputation against the privacy and confidentiality rights of others. In this case, the latter won.
Dr X had treated C and C’s mother; he had also been an expert witness in the family court care proceedings concerning C. C’s mother was unhappy about the treatment given by Dr X. She complained about him to the GMC, whose Fitness to Practise panel in due course found the allegations against Dr X to be unproven. C’s mother also criticised Dr X publicly in the media.’
Panopticon, 1st October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Paul Gallagher meets the people whose job it is to identify victims, stop abuse material being shared and distributed, categorise extreme imagery ready for court and, hopefully, catch paedophiles before they find a victim ‘
The Independent, 4th October 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
DL v SL: [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam); [2015] WLR (D) 391
‘FPR r 27.10 incorporated a strong starting point or presumption, which should not be derogated from unless there was a compelling reason, that ancillary relief proceedings should be heard in private. The law concerning the presence of the media in such proceedings, contained in FPR r 27.11 and Practice Direction PD27B: Attendance of Media Representatives at Hearings in Family Proceedings, was to enable the press to be the eyes and ears of the public so as to ensure that the case was conducted fairly and to enable the public to be educated in an abstract and general way about the processes that were deployed, but did not extend to breaching the privacy of the parties in those proceedings that Parliament had given to them.’
WLR Daily, 27th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘David Bedingfield, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings, considers conflicting judicial attitudes to the vexed question of rights to privacy in financial remedies proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 1st October 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Prisoners’ confidential legal letters to and from their lawyers and the courts have been wrongly opened by prison staff in half of cases investigated by the prisons ombudsman in the past year.’
The Guardian, 29th September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In Britain and other EU countries, people have the right to see footage of themselves recorded on CCTV cameras. Yet when one university researcher set out to test this, many operators were less than forthcoming.’
Full story
The Guardian, 22nd September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The spring of 2011 saw a rise in hysteria over privacy law. Superinjunctions were being simultaneously dismantled using the ancient protections afforded to debates in parliament, and more modern protections of anonymous postings on social media.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 21st September 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In the wake of the Ashley Madison hacking affair, Matthew Richardson, a barrister at Henderson Chambers, considers the criminal law implications and looks at how computer crime legislation is developing to deal with these types of issues.’
Full story
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th September 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024