Author: info@amberhawk.com

Has Google extended the right to be forgotten to the dead?

Horrid to be back from the summer holidays; however, I could not resist this topic as a subject of a quick blog (even on a late Friday afternoon which is “a good time to bury a blog”). As is well known, some newspapers are keeping lists of stories when Google tells them that their handiwork is being de-linked following the ECJ Judgment on “the right to be forgotten”. The Daily Telegraph is one such newspaper (see references). However, I could not

Read article

Has Europe cut the UK adrift on Data Protection?

In 1805, William Pitt the Younger, after hearing about Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Austerlitz is reported to have said: "Roll up that map (of Europe): it will not be wanted these ten years". Well I have attended two meetings which suggest that the European Union has already rolled up its Data Protection Map of Europe so it excludes the UK. The main reason for this? Anticipation of a likely UK withdrawal from European Union after the next General

Read article

ICO confirms that Data Protection Act does not apply to emergency powers law.

In yesterday’s blog, I suggested that the haste for the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP) was because of intended legal action; it looks as if my hunch is more than 50% correct. Secondly, I also said that the statements made by Government in relation to data protection, the national security functions and these emergency measures were complete rubbish; the ICO at his Annual Report launch yesterday confirmed that the protections afforded to data subjects by the Data Protection Act

Read article

Misleading data protection statements and another reason for the emergency data retention law?

I have just read the Explanatory Notes and the clauses in “The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill” which is being rushed through Parliament this week. According to Ministers, the Bill is primarily to allow the national security agencies and the police continued access to communications data and the content of communications because the European Court of Justice struck out the Data Retention Directive (on the grounds that the Directive provisions facilitated mass indiscriminate surveillance). According to Ministers, the Bill is

Read article

A “right to be forgotten” procedure for Google; it appears to have difficulty in developing one

Robert Preston the BBC journalist has a problem about one of his blogs: he asks “Why has Google cast me into oblivion?”. His blog concerned one of those banking “Masters of the Universe” whose expertise in the financial “dark arts” led to billion dollar losses and the collapse of Merrill Lynch. Google has told Mr Preston that thanks to the ECJ judgement, his article is no longer searchable by its search engine. James Ball, a Guardian journalist, has the same

Read article

Google lost its two recent Court cases for the same reason the one-stop shop does not work

Politicians who are consumed by years in power often decide on a policy that fits their viewpoint, and then identify the “facts” to justify why this policy should be imposed on the rest of us. Mrs Thatcher’s “Poll tax” and the Mr. Blair’s “Iraqi exploits” are classic examples of this genre. Well I think this kind of approach explains two important data protection issues: • Why Google, despite its predominate and powerful position, lost two recent Court cases (the ECJ “right

Read article

Why the European Parliament view of “data subject consent” should be supported.

I have been rather ambivalent about the debate about consent in the Directive 95/46/EC and the proposed replacement Regulation (if it happens). However the antics of the Insurance Industry in the UK in relation to subject access have convinced me that the European Parliament’s approach towards consent needs supporting. So what has the Insurance Industry done to deserve reproach? Well it has continued with its practice of asking, when needed, the data subject to consent to subject access to their

Read article

If Google remembers whom it has forgotten, has it complied with the ECJ Judgment?

Google has received all kinds of plaudits for quickly introducing its “right to be forgotten” procedure; however from what I have read in the press, its procedure for the removal of URLs is not fit for purpose. In this blog, I explain why Google’s procedure appears to be so defective. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you want to have a URL removed for whatever reason. As I explained in my previous blogs (see references), this will

Read article

Press and Google misrepresent European Court’s Google judgement

A tsunami of misinformation has overwhelmed the ECJ’s ruling on Google: high-tech corporate America, NGOs and parts of the UK media are claiming that the judgement constitutes shocking defeat for the concept of freedom of expression. In support of this claim, these organisations are publishing statements that are simply not true. This blog reviews this coverage in the hope that in this sea of error, a life-raft of objectivity can continue to float on the surface. The rhetoric The UK

Read article
Search Hawktalk blogs by month :
Select Date
View blogs by category:
Hawktalk Taxonomy