Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
The degree of that harm depends on the factual circumstances, but experience shows that it can be profound and irremediable.” The European Commission in 2012 released a draft European Data Protection Regulation that would supersede the EU Data Protection Directive. The law allows EU citizens to submit requests to search engines to have personal information delinked from the results of searching their name. Following a drunken altercation with a police officer the claimant was dismissed from his role at the National Crime Agency (“NCA”). The claimant then pursued a case for breach of the Data Protection Act (“DPA”). The analysis of the issues in the judgment provides significant insight into the application of the DPA. There was a Panopticon blog post about the case. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the claimants were entitled to a remedy in the tort of private nuisance by reason of the Tate Modern’s use of the top floor of its Blavatnik Building as a viewing platform. Facts Please note: this judgment was reuploaded on 01/02/2023 with a small change in paragraph one, to reflect that the visitor numbers included are from the time that the claim was brought. Watch Judgment summary
Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia
It is a welcome decision for those suspected of crimes who are subsequently not charged as they no longer have a reputational cloud hanging over their heads simply because of the investigation. If suspects are not charged then, in the majority of cases, no one will ever find out about the investigation.” HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch) and [2021] EWCA Civ 1810. The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.” R (Open Rights Group and the 3 million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800,
A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers said: “We are very surprised by today’s summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial. We are carefully considering the judgment’s contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal.” In 2017, the Economist found that half of the world’s countries scored lower for democracy than the previous year, mainly because of the erosion of confidence in government and public institutions. In alignment with this, according to the Director Journal, in 2017, the 28th Governor General of Canada articulated the growing and “disturbing” global pattern of mistrust in institutions, finding for the first time in the same year that less than half of Canadians trust their government, business, media, non-governmental organizations, and their leaders. News organisations should also apply caution where publishing information which has (a) been created in circumstances which may be argued to be private and (b) not previously entered the public domain. For an introduction to the data protection regimes under the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) or the Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), see: Data protection toolkit and Practice Note: The Data Protection Act 2018. For an introduction to the data protection regime under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), see: Data protection regime—DPA 1998—overview [Archived].
Privacy Scandals of All Time | CSO Online 15 Worst Internet Privacy Scandals of All Time | CSO Online
This July, British Airways (“ BA”) settled its long-running class action dispute with a number of the 420,000 people affected by a 2018 data breach. The settlement terms remain confidential, although we do know that: (a) compensation has been paid to qualifying claimants; and (b) no admission of liability on the part of BA is included. Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens: Report of the HEW Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems
Privacy in an AI Context
Rather than waging a losing battle against technological intrusions, we should put more effort towards recognizing the inherent value of our data. Doing so would allow us to shift our focus towards understanding and exercising our rights and options, and making informed decisions when it comes to how our data is being used.
Google data case to be heard in Supreme Court - BBC News
There were various appeals but in November of 2021 Google was ultimately successful with the Supreme Court ruling that the “lowest common denominator” approach was not appropriate and that neither damages for “loss of control” of data without any material damage or distress, nor “user damages” are available in claims under section 13 of the DPA 1998. As a result, Lloyd’s claim could not be served on Google (although they may still apply where claims rely upon the tort of misuse of private information). The Court was asked a number of questions, all of which broadly related to the question of how the prohibitions on processing sensitive personal data under the Directive applied to search engines. The claimants wished to have various results from searches of their names dereferenced from Google’s search results. The Court concluded that there was no blanket prohibition on the processing of sensitive personal data by search engines under the Data Protection Directive, thus refusing to compel the dereferencing of results. The European Law Blog has commentary. Limits recoverability of After-The-Event (“ ATE)” insurance premiums which had been common for claimants in low-value data claims typically for breach of confidence and misuse of private information claims to cover their costs and to pressure defendants into settling (and in paying more money to settle) by having to factor in ATE premiums when considering their costs liability. Since it is no longer clear that ATE premiums will be recoverable in such cases, claimants will need to give greater thought to purchasing this (particularly where cases involve data breaches) which may reduce the number of claims in which this tactic is deployed by claimants. A case concerning “the lawfulness” immigration exemption found in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exemption allows those processing personal data for immigration control purposes to refuse to comply with the data subject rights guaranteed by the GDPR to the extent that complying with those provisions would prejudice those purposes. The Court of Appeal found that this exemption was not compliant with Article 23 of the GDPR. The judge said “the only tenable justification” for publication would be to correct some inaccuracies about the letter contained in an article in People magazine that had featured an interview with friends of Meghan.
Confirmation that representatives are not liable for breaches by the data controller or data processor and remedies should be sought directly. The Court agreed that limb one was met on the facts. However, the Court found that Mr Peters did not have a reasonable expectation of protection from disclosure of this information within MSD and from MSD to the relevant Ministers and select staff. As the claimant could not prove that any of defendants had released information to the media. The appeal was dismissed. The case affirmed the removal of the requirement for there to be widespread disclosure and the potential for the removal of the requirement that disclosure be highly offensive. It was legitimate for Markle and the defendant to use a part of the letter to rebut a false suggestion in the People article that the letter represented some form of “olive branch” from the duchess to her father, he said. But it was the “inescapable conclusion” that it was neither “necessary or proportionate” to disclose the rest of the information in the letter, he added.
Great Deal 
New Comment