Category: Other Information Law

The voice-mail hacking incident is still exercising MPs – especially the Labour ones who did little to protect individual privacy in its decade in power (see last week’s blog). So when Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) gave evidence on “Specialist Operations” to the Home Affairs Select Committee (last week), MPs on the Committee took the opportunity to ask a range of questions about the lack of prosecutions re such hacking. Mr Yates’ answers reveal that

When on holiday in the Dordogne two weeks ago (feels like two months now!), I picked up a Sunday Times newspaper which stated that the Government was reducing grant-funding for speed cameras. This was given the “thumbs-up” by the paper which reported that many motorists see such cameras as a tax first and a life-saver second. Some speed cameras are already history. Conservative controlled Swindon Borough Council switched off its cameras in April this year, whilst a funding shortfall of

Both opposition parties (now in power) before the General Election focussed on Local Authorities as the main abuser of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) powers, and to some extent the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's recent decision re Poole Borough Council appears to reinforce that view (see references). The Tribunal concluded that the Council’s procedures were at fault (they are in fact very sloppy), the surveillance was too extensive, and the purpose underpinning the surveillance operation uncertain. This was also accompanied by the

“Googsoft!” – my shorthand for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! -  are clearly trying the patience of Europe’s Data Protection Commissioners. Earlier in the week, the Commissioners reported these companies to USA’s Federal Trade Commission and to the European Commission claiming that Googsoft!’s privacy practices are unacceptable. Clearly these letters are intended to have later regulatory effect (see references for URL). Yet the problem for Data Protection Commissioners is that the public have, without regard for their own privacy, lapped up

Today's speech from Nick Clegg, deputy Prime-Minister needs no elaboration from me. He said "This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens. It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide". He continued "It has to stop". "1. So there will be no ID card scheme. 2. No national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports. 3. We won't hold your internet and email records when there is just no

I now am convinced that a new Directive allows Member States to introduce consent/opt-out requirements for ALL forms of electronic marketing including behavioural marketing. The only unanswered question is whether Member States offer this option to its citizens when they implement the required legislative changes by next May. However, the Directive also allows a continuation of a minimum privacy protection policy with respect to the use of electronic marketing by organisations. For example, the current position in the UK is

For some time, I have been advocating the creation of an explicit and unequivocal link between the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Human Rights Act (HRA). I now think that this link already exists and that the Information Commissioner (ICO) should take up cases which involve the unlawful use or retention of personal data, where "lawfulness" is assessed in the context of compliance or non-compliance with the obligation to show respect for private and family life (Article 8(1) of the

I made a mistake in my blog “Uncomfortable questions over biometric ID Cards and national security” posted on the 18th Feb.  A couple of days after I had posted the text, the BBC carried reports that the Foreign Secretary had said that the new UK biometric passports were not used by those who assassinated a Hamas official in Dubai. I had written the blog assuming the passports were the biometric ones, so obviously my comments about how the biometric details

Fresh from a 17-0 defeat in the European Court of Human Rights (in the case of Marper v the UK and the DNA database), a refreshed Home Office human rights team (under its new coach, Home Secretary, Alan Johnson), has suffered a 7-0 drubbing over its anti-terrorism law (in the case of Gillan and Quinton v the UK on stop and search). If we were really talking about football, what would you think of the Home Office human rights team

The recent decision of the Information Commissioner to appeal the recent judgement of the Court of Appeal with respect to the retention of criminal records (see last Thursday and Friday’s blog) raises an intriguing question. Is the Information Commissioner with a mission statement that focuses on information rights seeking to expand the protection of those rights into the Human Rights arena? In his press statement David Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner says the Court of Appeal judgment “engages serious questions about