‘The UK’s data regulator is writing to WhatsApp to demand that the chat app does not hand user data to Facebook, as millions worldwide continue to sign up for alternatives such as Signal and Telegram to avoid forthcoming changes to its terms of service.’
The Guardian, 26th January 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Data-sharing arrangements between one controller and another proliferate across all sorts of processing contexts, aimed at all sorts of purposes. If those arrangements are to comply with the GDPR and/or DPA 2018, they need to be structured so as to ensure that the data-sharing satisfies the data protection principles. This includes having “appropriate technical and organisational measures” in place. So far, so clear. But how do you assess whether your measures are “appropriate”? And if push comes to shove, how will a court approach that assessment?’
Panopticon, 25th January 2021
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A teenager has failed in a judicial review of how information on her was shared between Sussex Police and the Brighton & Hove Business Crime Reduction Partnership.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st January 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has granted anonymity to a 12-year-old girl, allowing the Children’s Commissioner, as her litigation friend, to bring a breach of privacy action against social media platform TikTok.’
Litigation Futures, 7th January 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Police and government must urgently introduce measures to stop police sharing domestic abuse victims’ immigration data with the Home Office, a major new report has warned.
Campaigners have routinely voiced fears women with unsettled immigration status who are suffering domestic violence are often too fearful to report the abuse due to fears police will share their data with the Home Office and they will face deportation.’
The Independent, 17th December 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘General Data Protection Regulation fines are like a number 65 bus: you wait for a long time and then three arrive at once. In the space of a month the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued three monetary penalty notices. All relate to breaches of GDPR’s security requirements as set out in articles 5 and 32.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th December 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The information commissioner has criticised the “antiquated process” that led to Facebook getting hold of Cambridge Analytica’s servers before the UK regulator itself, and renewed calls for an international approach to data privacy to tackle the emerging threat of data havens.’
The Guardian, 24th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Leanne Francis comments on the ICO’s new guidance on handling data subject access requests from employees.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Court of Appeal in London has strengthened the tools available to rights holders when seeking to control and exploit commercially valuable data within sport and set out the pitfalls for third parties who seek to do the same without clear, unambiguous approval from a rights holder.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Ever since the Information Commissioner issued British Airways with a notice proposing to impose a massive fine of £183.39m for a data breach incident in 2018, we have all be waiting with bated breath to see how that process would conclude. A fine at that level would have been the largest ever issued by a data protection regulator in Europe, and would have dwarfed the eye-watering €50m proposed by the French data protection authority CNIL in respect of Google’s advertisement personalisation practices, affecting millions of French citizens. The prospect of BA, a corporate victim of a criminal cyber-attack affecting around 400,000 people’s (mostly payment-card) data, being subject to fine in excess of 4x as large certainly grabbed the headlines.’
Panopticon, 19th October 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Samantha Smith looks at how organisations can handle the data protection challenges of remote working.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The coronavirus pandemic created an impetus for the legal world to finally begin accepting digitalisation of processes, moving away from the traditional paper process to an online version. The immigration process is already faced with a myriad of concerns which leaves the applicant in a weak position, and most often, with a lack of funds to cover their costs. The Home Office’s inability to train and effectively manage applications, outsource services to dubious third-party contractors has been exacerbated further by the haphazard application of online processes which do not match the needs of the immigration process. Despite the fact that online applications are easier to complete for legal representatives a number of issues have arisen as a result of this sudden change.’
EIN Blog, 21st September 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The UK government is considering whether to allow non-profit organisations to make data protection regulatory complaints and bring court claims on behalf of individuals without their consent.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th September 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV cameras capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Singh LJ) allowed the appeal of the civil liberties campaigner, Edward Bridges, against the decision of the Divisional Court which had dismissed his claim for judicial review of South Wales Police Force’s use of live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”).’
39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024