Tuesday, 17 April 2018

CYBER Cloud Computing: Legal & Regulatory Challenges (Ian Walden) - YouTube

Cloud Computing: Legal & Regulatory Challenges (Ian Walden) - YouTube: "Dr Ian Walden of the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London, and Of Counsel at Baker & McKenzie, speaking at the Faculty of Law, UCC conference "Regulating Cloud Computing: Clear Skies Ahead" on 16 November 2012" 'via Blog this'

PRIVACY - NT1 and NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB)

One Brick Court - News - NT1 and NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB):


Judgment was handed down in the first two “right to be forgotten” claims against Google LLC to be brought in England and Wales. Both claimants sought orders for the removal of Google search results which linked to information about their “spent” criminal convictions. They also sought compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and damages for misuse of private information. 

 Warby J rejected NT1’s claim, but in NT2’s claim he made an order to “delist” search results. NT2’s claim of inaccuracy in respect of one of the links, to a national newspaper report, was upheld. The Judge found in respect of other links that “the crime and punishment information has become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google Search”. NT2 was also successful in his claim for misuse of private information.  

Warby J declined to make any award of compensation or damages to NT2. Following the CJEU’s decision in Google Spain, Google had engaged in “an enterprise...committed to compliance with the relevant requirements” and, in the current legal climate, “it would be harsh to say it had failed to take reasonable care to do so”.

Google was therefore entitled to the defence under section 13(3) of the DPA, and for similar reasons, no damages were payable for misuse of private information." 'via Blog this'

MEDIA: Communications List User Group Meeting: 15 February 2018 Inforrm's Blog

Media and Communications List User Group Meeting: 15 February 2018 – Paul Magrath | Inforrm's Blog: "One of the matters discussed was the question of transferring cases from other divisions into the Queen’s Bench Division Media and Communications List (M&CL). At present, the M&CL was not a specialist list for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules, such as would enable the transfer in of cases. That would require a practice direction from the Lord Chief Justice. It was a matter that might be considered at some future date, but as things stood any transfer had to be done by the court in which the proceedings had been issued.

 A recent case where the issue had arisen was Appleby Global Group LLC v British Broadcasting Corporation[2018] EWHC 104 (Ch) (in which claims for damages and a permanent injunction against media defendants arising out of the alleged misuse of confidential financial information in the so-called ‘Paradise Papers’ had been brought in the Chancery Division and the judge, Rose J, declined to transfer the case to the M&CL).

 Warby J accepted that there might be cases involving media issues that needed specialist expertise (such as technical company law points) that justified their being heard in another court, such as the Chancery Division." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 16 April 2018

Privacy: Commission guidance on the direct application of the GDPR

EUR-Lex - 52018DC0043 - EN - EUR-Lex: "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Stronger protection, new opportunities - Commission guidance on the direct application of the General Data Protection Regulation as of 25 May 2018


 On 6 April 2016, the EU agreed to a major reform of its data protection framework, by adopting the data protection reform package, comprising the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)  1 replacing the twenty years old Directive 95/46/EC 2 (‘Data Protection Directive’) and the Police Directive 3 .

On 25 May 2018, the new EU-wide data protection instrument, the General Data Protection Regulation, ("the Regulation"), will become directly applicable, two years after its adoption and entry into force 4 .

The new Regulation will strengthen the protection of the individual’s right to personal data protection, reflecting the nature of data protection as a fundamental right for the European Union 5 ." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Week 11 House of Lords Committee Report: AI in the UK

AI in the UK: — Shorthand Social: "The UK must seek to actively shape AI's development and utilisation, or risk passively acquiescing to its many likely consequences. A shared ethical AI framework is needed to give clarity as to how AI can best be used to benefit individuals and society. By establishing these principles, the UK can lead by example in the international community.

We recommend that the Government convene a global summit of governments, academia and industry to establish international norms for the design, development, regulation and deployment of artificial intelligence.

 The prejudices of the past must not be unwittingly built into automated systems, and such systems must be carefully designed from the beginning, with input from as diverse a group of people as possible." 'via Blog this'

Google Spain – 2014 High Court judgment - Norwich Pharma

Google Spain – new High Court judgment - Panopticon Panopticon: "Mr Hegglin is an individual who is resident in Hong Kong, but has previously lived in and retained closed connections with the UK. An anonymous person posted abusive and defamatory material concerning Mr Hegglin on a number of websites which were then indexed on Google.

Mr Hegglin went on to bring proceedings against Google Inc under the DPA, including claims under s. 10 (right to prevent processing likely to cause substantial damage or distress) and s. 14 (right to rectification). He sought an injunction requiring Google Inc to block specific sites containing the allegations and a Norwich Pharmacal order was made.

Relying specifically on Google Spain, Bean J held that service of the DPA proceedings could properly be effected on Google Inc. He also held that England was the appropriate forum for the dispute and was also suitable for the trial, particularly as the defamatory remarks risked damage to Mr Hegglin’s reputation in England." 'via Blog this'