PRIVACY: Forgetting What We Never Knew

SCL: Forgetting What We Never Knew: "In NT 1 & Anor v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 261 (QB) (and the earlier judgment at [2018] EWHC 67 (QB)) we appear to be heading for ground-breaking judgments on the so-called right to be forgotten when we have no idea what information is sought to be erased from the Google search records.

We face the very real prospect that the lead judgment on this important issue will be based on a set of facts of which all applying the principles set out in the judgment remain in ignorance. All I can say, at least while using appropriate language, is that the situation is going to make life tough and, perhaps more important, is going to leave the goal virtually unguarded when the media weigh in with their inevitable attacks on any restrictions that the judgment seeks to apply.

We know that the information at the heart of each claim concerns an old criminal conviction.

The claimants say that in some respects the information returned by Google is inaccurate, and in any event ‘way out of date and … being maintained for far longer than is necessary for any conceivable legitimate purpose’. The Google defences include an assertion that the information is substantially accurate, and the propositions that if its search results involved the processing or disclosure of personal data or private information about the claimants this was necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression by internet users and/or necessary for the purposes of its own legitimate interests and/or (in at least some respects) was otherwise in the substantial public interest.

Google's defences apparently involve reliance on a deal of background information about the claimants, and the convictions which they seek to have de-listed.

Counsel for the media describe the issues as having ‘potentially profound and far-reaching ramifications on both a legal and general public interest level’.

The Court is concerned, especially in a context where there will be ‘substantial and obviously legitimate interest’ in the cases, about ‘open justice’. But, as Warby J states, ‘the proceedings would be self-defeating if the claimants were obliged, as the price of bringing their claims before the court, to submit every detail of the information they seek to protect to public scrutiny’.

I don’t envy Warby J as he seeks to frame a judgment which makes sense while having to use a range of techniques to protect the claimants’ identity. And I don’t envy those reporting the case while still respecting the reporting restrictions that apply. " 'via Blog this'

CYBER BLOCKCHAIN: Digital Currencies Inquiry

SCL: Digital Currencies Inquiry: "The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee has announced an inquiry into ‘digital currencies’.

The influential committee, chaired by Nicky Morgan MP, will look at the role of digital currencies in the UK, including the opportunities and risks that digital currencies may bring to consumers, businesses, and the Government.

It aims to examine the potential impact of distributed ledger technology—such as blockchain—on financial institutions, including the central bank, and financial infrastructure.

It will also scrutinise the regulatory response to digital currencies from the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Bank of England, and how regulation could be balanced to provide adequate protection for consumers and businesses without stifling innovation.

 The Committee’s terms of reference are as follows"

 'via Blog this'

JURISDICTION & PRIVACY: Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants

Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants: "The proposed rules are the latest attempt by authorities around the world to update regulations to keep pace with technology. In May the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect, requiring firms to give customers more control over their online information.

 The planned law would give European prosecutors the power to compel companies to hand over data, bypassing existing legal channels known as mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT).

 Jourova said the law would apply to crimes which carry a minimum penalty of three years to ensure serious crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking are covered, however discussions are still ongoing.

 Under MLAT, which is widely criticized for being unwieldy and slow, a European prosecutor would have to go to the government of the country where the data was stored and ask for a local subpoena or search warrant.

Some privacy campaigners agree that the MLAT system needs to be changed to speed up the process, but oppose any moves to requisition personal data across borders." 'via Blog this'

PRIVACY: Facebook loses Belgian privacy case, faces fine of up to $125 million

Facebook loses Belgian privacy case, faces fine of up to $125 million: "In a case brought by Belgium’s privacy watchdog, the court also ruled that Facebook had to delete all data it had gathered illegally on Belgian citizens, including people who were not Facebook users themselves.

Facebook, which will be fined 250,000 euros a day or up to 100 million euros if it does not comply with the court’s judgment, said in a statement it would appeal the ruling.

“Facebook informs us insufficiently about gathering information about us, the kind of data it collects, what it does with that data and how long it stores it,” the court said.

“It also does not gain our consent to collect and store all this information,” it added in a statement.

 The social media group uses different methods to track the online behavior of people if they are not on the company’s web site by placing cookies and invisible pixels on third-party web sites, the court said." 'via Blog this'

Ireland pushes for UK TV channels to make post-Brexit move- Guardian

Ireland pushes for UK TV channels to make post-Brexit move | Politics | The Guardian: "Ireland is facing stiff competition for the Brexit spoils. It is understood Belgian authorities have also held events in London for the broadcasting industry, and Luxembourg has been sending letters out to TV chiefs arguing it is a natural home for TV as the operator of the Astra satellite system which distributes all the main UK channels including Sky and the BBC.

The Netherlands, where Netflix is based, is also considered to be in a good position.

Ireland has already lured 21 financial services to Dublin because of Brexit, including Bank of America, JP Morgan, Barclays and the credit agency Standard & Poor’s.

 The Ofcom chief executive, Sharon White, warned last year “some are having to consider the disruption of relocation” warning that broadcasters may move staff “early” this year." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Privacy: Letter to EU Commissioners: UK proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill

Open Rights Group - Letter to EU Commissioners: Concern over United Kingdom’s proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill: "The blanket immigration exemptions go beyond the necessity and proportionality of restrictions under Article 23 of the GDPR and directly interfere with an individual’s right of access to data, and for their data to be processed fairly under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.

The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:

 “...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.” 


And at para. 95:

“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”

Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.

We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Privacy: Letter to EU Commissioners: UK proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill

Open Rights Group - Letter to EU Commissioners: Concern over United Kingdom’s proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill: "The blanket immigration exemptions go beyond the necessity and proportionality of restrictions under Article 23 of the GDPR and directly interfere with an individual’s right of access to data, and for their data to be processed fairly under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.

The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:

 “...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.” 


And at para. 95:

“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”

Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.

We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'