Category: Data Protection

Suppose you see a mouse in your house; is this the only mouse in your house? The relevance of the question will come apparent when we dig deeper into those infamous “black boxes” allegedly used by the USA’s National Security Agency, the latest GCHQ mass interception fandango, and the responsibilities of the Information Commissioner. With respect to the “black boxes”, I am surprised that no-one has linked the latest machinations with the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) debacle

This blog reports the latest leak from "the DAPIX sieve" in the areas of transfers of personal data outside the EEA and fines from Data Protection Authorities (references below has the link to the leaked document). As is well known the Irish have published the first 40 Articles of the Commission’s Regulation (see previous blogs); this leak (at the end of the Irish Presidency) gives a good idea of the direction of travel in relation to the remaining 50 Articles.

No doubt you have seen this weekend’s brouhaha about GCHQ and the Guardian’s allegation that it has intercepted communications on a gargantuan scale. Well I think Mr Hague can clear everything up with a public statement as to why he thinks such interception is proportionate without any nonsense such as: "I can't say anything because that could jeopardise national security”. Why? Because it is very likely that he has signed (or authorised) a warrant phrased in very general terms that

Today’s blog deals with the UK position on the Irish text of the Regulation and is based on the statements of Chris Grayling MP, the Cabinet Minister responsible for data protection at a June’s Council of Ministers meeting (see references). Following these statements I have concluded that the current UK Government policy on data protection supports a level of protection below that established by Directive 95/46/EC. This arises because the Government want many more data protection obligations in the replacement