This two part post looks at why the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), as derived from the Data Protection Directive 1995 (the “DP Directive”) has suddenly, over 25 years since its enactment, become the weapon of choice for reputation managers and in doing so created a thorny new set of problems, particularly for internet intermediaries. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Ashley Hurst (Page 2 of 3)
As the shock waves of the ECJ’s decision in Google Spain v González [2014] EUECJ C-131/12 (13 May 2014) continue to lap up against California’s shorelines, thorny questions continue to arise by the day as to the scope of the decision. Continue reading
Perhaps the most critical question for Google’s lawyers when receiving a deluge of new take-down/ blocking requests will be when the data processing complained of is unlawful within the EU data protection regime and when Google has the requisite knowledge of such unlawful processing. Continue reading
With the Defamation Act 2013 (the “Act”) now in force, the first section 5 notices will no doubt already be rolling in and website operators will be deciding whether or not to employ the new defence. To assist in their decision, the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) has whittled its guidance on the section 5 Regulations (the “Regulations”) down to 8 pages (guidance) and added a few more “frequently asked questions”, bringing the total number to 56 (FAQs). Continue reading
The Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”) last week published its draft regulations (the “Regulations”) for the notice and take-down procedure for website operators under Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 (“Section 5” and the “Act”). Continue reading
The recent experience of Paris Brown, the 17-year-old who resigned before taking up her role as Kent’s Youth Police and Crime Commissioner following a furore surrounding comments she made on Twitter, demonstrates exactly the type of police activity that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, was seeking to prevent when he issued prosecution guidelines (the “Guidelines“) in December of last year.
The Leveson amendments to the Crime & Courts Bill could pose a very significant threat to freedom of expression on the internet unless greater clarity in the definitions is achieved. The devil is all in the detail and very careful scrutiny is required to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences. Continue reading
If Leveson’s proposals to erode the journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) materialise, libel claimants may have an extra string to their bow. But is the DPA already being used and abused by libel claimants? Ashley Hurst and Jack Gilbert discuss.
Amongst the many recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s 2,000-page report, his proposed changes to the UK data protection regime would include significantly scaling back the journalistic exemption currently afforded by section 32 of the DPA. This exemption currently allows data controllers to collect and use personal data without the need to comply with the other provisions of the Act, on the basis that it is collected with a view to the publication of journalistic material and is in the public interest. Continue reading
On 14 December 2012 the Ministry of Justice commenced an informal consultation seeking views on the content of the Regulations to be made under clause 5 of the Defamation Bill concerning the new defence for website operators. These Regulations will establish the notice and take-down procedure that website operators will have to follow in order to be able to rely on the new clause 5 defence. Continue reading
Just a few days before the Defamation Bill receives its line-by-line scrutiny in the House of Lords Grand Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report on the Bill.
The report centres on what the Joint Committee considers to be the key elements of the Defamation Bill that impact on human rights, being the proposed codification of the Reynolds defence in clause 4, the new defence for website operators in clause 5, and the proposed single publication rule in clause 8. In this post, I follow on from my previous postings about internet libel and clause 5 (see Part 1 and Part 2) by commenting on the Joint Committee’s recommendations as to clause 5. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2022 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑