Category: Other Information Law

Yesterday, the Intelligence and Security Committee held a round-table on privacy and national security; in particular in relation to the Snowdon revelations and possible changes to the law. So this is a good excuse to publish my written evidence to the Committee. It is on the lines that the Data Protection Act should apply to the processing of personal data by the national security agencies. Historically the national security function was made exempt from the Data Protection Act 1984 probably

I suspect the Government is going to ditch the Law Commission recommendations on data sharing; this is because it wants a quick implementation of its own extensive data sharing proposals. In short, general data sharing powers are now on the political agenda again. This is the third time in a decade that Government has tried to obtain data sharing powers that apply in circumstances unconnected with the usual suspects (e.g. data sharing in relation to crime, national security and law

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

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

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

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

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

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