‘The European court of justice has declared the data retention directive illegal, torpedoing UK government schemes for the so-called “snooper’s charter” of wide-ranging collection of phone and internet data.’
The Guardian, 8th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It is difficult to have missed the hype surrounding Google Glass (referred to simply as “Glass”), not only because of its futuristic technological capabilities and design, but also the concerns it raises for an individual’s Art 8 right to privacy.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 24th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘In the second part of her article reviewing reporting restriction orders and the new transparency Mary Lazarus, barrister of 42 Bedford Row, considers those cases involving aggrieved parties and cases with international implications.’
Family Law Week, 4th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘This is the first part of a three-part article by Mary Lazarus, barrister of 42 Bedford Row, reviewing recent developments concerning reporting restriction orders and transparency in the family courts. In this first part Mary considers some procedural issues before concentrating on those cases involving clashes between the need for privacy and the desire to report issues of genuine public interest.’
Family Law Week, 27th February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Sir Brian Leveson “pulled his punches” over evidence of “serious police corruption at the very highest level” because it was “too hot to handle”, according to a complaint that has been lodged with the judicial watchdog by a News of the World hacking victim.’
The Independent, 2nd March 2014
Source: www.independent.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
‘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
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
‘New guidance on transparency in proceedings has been published by the President of the Family Division and of the Court of Protection, Sir James Munby.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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
‘Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users.’
The Guardian, 16th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th December 2014
‘The government will consider a domestic violence campaigner’s proposal for new laws to allow victims to keep their safe house addresses secret in court.’
BBC News, 17th December 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘One Direction’s Harry Styles has won a court order banning the paparazzi from pursuing him in the street or waiting outside his house.’
The Guardian, 16th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025