Author: info@amberhawk.com

This is the first in a series of blogs on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (the “Bill”) published just before the Parliamentary recess.  This blog explains: (a) how the Bill’s new definition of “personal data” works; (b) why the definition is very problematic for data subjects;  and (c) how, after nearly four decades of data protection law in the UK, the Government is promoting a definition of personal data that is demonstrably weaker than that in the DPA1984.

A fortnight ago, the Government published its UK Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). My main conclusions concerning the Bill of Rights relevant to data protection are: The Bill changes who interprets the meaning of necessity, public interest and proportionality and thereby changes the nature of the link between the UK_GDPR and A.8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right of respect for private and family life etc). The Courts do not undertake the

According to press leaks, tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech is likely to contain two pieces of legislation that impacts on the current UK’s data protection regime.  Evidently they will form part of the Great Brexit Dividend which, surprisingly, has yet to reveal itself to the general public. According to the leaks, there is to be a Data Reform Bill, which is intended to implement the DCMS proposals, post its consultation (“Data: a new direction”). There will also be legislation intended to implement

I have come to the conclusion that the Government does not care whether or not the UK’s Adequacy Agreement with the European Commission continues after its expiry (latest in mid-2025). This conclusion is based on the well-publicised deficiencies in the two consultation exercises of the DCMS (on data protection) and MoJ (on human rights) and the recent report of Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights into the MoJ proposals.  This latter Report carries many warnings concerning the Government’s intent to

This blog reviews the new Information Commissioner’s speech at the end of March to a group of IAPP data protection specialists.  The speech contained statements that I don’t recognise as being consistent with the DCMS proposals for changing the UK_GDPR. One passage in the speech related to the general importance of the need for a lawful basis for many actions; whether that lawful basis relates to stop and search by the police, or the processing of personal data by a

The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) Consultation,  “Human Rights Act Reform: A modern Bill of Rights” (the “Consultation”), contains proposals that tips the balance between “respect for private and family life.” (A.8) and freedom of expression and to impart information (A.10) in favour of the latter (A.10). Quoting a single ECHR judgment (ML v Slovakia) as justification for the changes, the Consultation fails to realise the judgment does the precise opposite.   A case which initially appears to be one where the

“Operation Save Big Dog” is the name given to the effort expended to ensure the Prime Minister survives, despite several after-hours, alcohol-fuelled, “office-gatherings” at 10 Downing Street during COVID-lockdown.  This Operation has coincided with the need to remind the British public of the pure brilliance of the Brexit decision. Hence last week’s announcement of a ‘Brexit Freedoms’ Bill” (with the promise to use Ministerial powers push through major change) and the publication of a policy document entitled “The Benefits of

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Consultation,  “Human Rights Act Reform: A modern Bill of Rights”,  has the potential to significantly undermine the application of UK’s data protection regime. These MoJ proposals are in addition to the DCMS proposals which also weakened the UK_GDPR (discussed in various blogs last November).  Neither the DCMS nor the MoJ make any reference to the fact that their separate public consultations are connected when data protection is concerned.  One wonders how this fundamental omission was