“A local authority in London has been fined £70,000 after mistakenly disclosing sensitive personal information about more than 2,000 people in response to a freedom of information (FOI) request.”
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Information Commissioner’s Office should not have imposed a £250,000 fine on Scottish Borders Council for a data breach, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has ruled.”
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd August 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
“The prosecution of a probation officer for handing over personal information relating to the victim of domestic abuse to the alleged perpetrator should act as a reminder to business of the criminal penalties they could face for breaching UK data protection laws, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 21st August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Privacy campaigners have condemned Google for responding to British users’ claims that it had illicitly tracked their web browsing by claiming that UK laws do not apply to it.
The Guardian, 19th August 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Joint liquidators of a company were not data controllers within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of data processed by the company prior to its liquidation.”
WLR Daily, 8th August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Yesterday I posted about a new and important High Court judgment on the application of the subject access regime. As it happens, yesterday was also the day on which the Information Commissioner published his new ‘Subject Access Code of Practice’. This is an important document which requires careful consideration by anyone working in the DPA field.”
Panopticon, 9th August 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Businesses cannot refuse to hand over records containing employees’ personal information just because they suspect the information could be used against them in an employment tribunal, the UK’s data protection watchdog has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“It is a strange feature of the DPA subject access regime that, despite having extremely far reaching legal effects, to date it only rarely been the subject of judicial analysis. This is in no small part because the costs of bringing disputes over the application of the legislation before the courts are generally prohibitive. As readers of this blog will know, there have been some fairly recent county court judgments which have considered the application of the regime (see in particular the posts on the judgments in Elliott and Abadir here and here). However, jurisprudence emanating from the High Court has been decidedly thin on the ground. Today however the High Court has handed down an important judgment on the application of the regime: In the Matter of the Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited [2013] EWHC 2485 (Admin). Readers will want to note in particular that part of the judgment where the court considered the relevance of the applicant’s purpose or motive in making a subject access request (SAR) – as discussed below.”
Panopticon, 8th August 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The Secretary of State (SoS) was correct to conclude that the demolition of a Victorian Chapel to pave the way for a housing regeneration scheme was an independent project and therefore did not require an environmental impact assessment (EIA), a High Court judge has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 7th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“GP practices could face prosecution under the Data Protection Act if they do not take steps to inform patients that data will be taken from their records and used by the NHS and private companies from this autumn.”
The Independent, 6th August 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55; [2013] WLR (D) 307
“Whether processing personal data was ‘necessary’ within the meaning of condition 6 in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1998 was to be determined as part of the proportionality test established in European Union law so that a measure which interfered with a right protected by such law had to be the least restrictive for the achievement of a legitimate aim.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th July 2013
“Robert Brown examines the implications for eDisclosure when a company’s data has moved into cyberspace.”
New Law Journal, 19th July 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“A sharp rise in the number of privacy hearings in British courts has been fuelled by requests for ‘irrelevant’ personal information to be removed from police and other state databases, figures show.”
The Independent, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“An NHS body has been issued with a £200,000 fine for failing to ensure that sensitive medical information about thousands of patients were deleted from old computers that were sold online.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Seven of the UK’s leading human rights groups and privacy campaigners have demanded an urgent review of the laws being used to authorise the mass collection and analysis of data by Britain’s spy centre, GCHQ.”
The Guardian, 14th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The tension between transparency and individual privacy is part of what makes information rights such a fascinating and important area. When it comes to high-public interest issues involving particular individuals, prevailing wisdom has tended to be something like this: say as much as possible on an open basis, but redact and anonymise so as to protect the identity of the individuals involved. Increasingly, however, transparency is outmuscling privacy. See for example my post about the Tribunal’s order of disclosure, in the FOIA context, of the details of the compensation package of a Chief Executive of an NHS Trust (the case of Dicker v IC (EA/2012/0250).”
Panopticon, 11th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“FOCUS: Companies operating in the European Union must process personal data in line with the EU’s Data Protection Directive. But, like Google in recent years, they find themselves facing very different enforcement regimes in each country.”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has warned public sector bodies that they face being fined for breaching data protection laws if they disclose “hidden” personal information in their responses to freedom of information (FOI) requests.”
OUT-LAW.com, 1st July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Right to be Forgotten: What information do internet companies and social networks have on us and can we delete it? Joshua Rozenberg explores the legal battle going on in Europe about a new law to enable consumers more rights to delete information held on them. We hear what Facebook thinks of the proposed law.”
BBC Law in Action, 25th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024