‘A police force has been fined £100,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office after confidential information – including interview videotapes – was left in the basement of a former police station.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Information stored electronically does not constitute property which someone can exercise possession of, judges in the UK have ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The UK’s Information Commissioner Office (ICO) has been asked to investigate whether privacy rules were breached when data collected from hospitals was uploaded to cloud servers operated by Google.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd: [2014] EWCA Civ 281; [2014] WLR (D) 131
‘The exercise of a common law lien was not available over an electronic database as the electronic database was not property susceptible of possession which was capable of being subject to larceny or conversion or being taken in execution.’
WLR Daily, 14th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court is this week hearing a judicial review that claimant lawyers hope will strike down the deeply unpopular policy of HM Revenue & Customs that means it will only release the employment history of a mesothelioma victim to their lawyer with a High Court order.’
Litigation futures, 12th March 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An abortion provider has been fined £200,000 for a data breach that revealed almost 10,000 people’s details to a hacker.’
BBC News, 7th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Deciding whether information which arguably relates to an individual amounts to their “personal data” for the purposes of s. 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 is one of the more challenging aspects of the DPA regime. In making the judgment call in any particular case, data controllers have routinely looked to the guidance set out Auld LJ’s judgment in the well known case of Durant v Financial Services Act [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, [2011] 1 Info LR 1. In his judgment, Auld LJ indicated that there were two “notions” likely to be of assistance when it came to determining whether particular data was sufficiently “personal” that if tell within the scope of the DPA.’
Panopticon, 7th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Can the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) be used to prevent a respected NGO from reporting allegations of corruption by a multi-billion dollar international mining conglomerate? That is the stark question posed by Steinmetz and others v Global Witness Limited, a recently issued High Court DPA Claim.’
Panopticon, 10th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Government must take action to ensure that signs used to warn motorists that CCTV cameras are being used to monitor for parking offences are compliant with UK data protection laws, a watchdog has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘We asked the business lobbying group CBI, the Institute of Directors (IOD) and Trade Union lawyer Richard Arthur for their views on reform of this prickly area of law.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 7th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘A recent decision in the English High Court about internet cookie use has been making waves.’
Technology Law Update, 5th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A group of UK Google users called ‘Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking’ have claimed that the tracking and collation of information about of their internet usage by Google amounts to misuse of personal information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Judge confirmed that misuse of personal information was a distinct tort. He also held that the English courts had jurisdiction to try the claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The replacement of Directive 95/26/EC – the bedrock of data protection in Europe – with a new Regulation is intended as a radical overhaul, making protections for personal data fit for the digital world. It has now been over two years since the first substantive draft of that Regulation was made public.’
Panopticon, 20th January 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Proposed EU laws could render £50 million NHS database illegal, senior officials warn.’
Daily Telegraph, 20th January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Google is to face a claim for damages before the High Court from three individuals who claim the company breached UK data protection laws by circumventing privacy settings deployed on their web browsers to serve them with personalised adverts.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘When an identifiable individual has been the subject of a formal complaint about their competence or conduct, that fact constitutes their personal data. In terms of privacy/publicity decisions, such situations are often approached in this way: where the complaint is well founded or at least merits serious consideration, publication is warranted, but otherwise confidentiality is maintained, lest unjustified aspersions be cast against that person.’
Panopticon, 17th January 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Privacy experts have warned that commercial firms will be able to identify people when they are given access to confidential NHS patient data.’
The Independent, 20th January 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘I posted earlier on Tugendhat J’s judgment this morning in Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB). The judgment is now available here – thanks as ever to Bailii.’
Panopticon, 16th January 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025