Bloomberg had argued that the general public understands that reporting the existence of a criminal investigation into an individual does not mean they are necessarily guilty of a criminal offence. However, the supreme court ruled that even revealing the existence of a criminal inquiry would affect aspects of an individual’s private life such as “the right to establish and develop relationships with other people”. The Tate Modern opened an extension in 2016 called the Blavatnik Building. The Blavatnik building is ten stories high and, on its top floor, has a viewing platform which offers panoramic views of London. The Appellants own flats neighbouring the Tate Modern which are of a similar elevation to the Blavatnik building and whose walls are mainly made of glass. On the southside of the viewing platform, visitors to the Tate can see directly into the flats of the Appellants.

BBC News Facebook sued over Cambridge Analytica data scandal - BBC News

Consent is also not as powerful a tool as one may be led to believe, even if the requirements for consent are that it is informed and freely given. The Clearview AI example shows that consent was not sought as much as it should have been according to the OPC. As a similar example, Microsoft removed its database of 10 million facial photographs – which were being used by organizations like IBM, Panasonic, Alibaba, military researchers and Chinese surveillance firms – as most of the people whose faces were in the dataset were not aware their image had been included. that the publicity given to those private facts would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. Associated Newspapers was granted permission appeal and the appeal was heard on 9 and 11 November 2021 with judgment being handed down on 2 December 2021, The Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Sharp P and Bean LJ, unanimously dismissed the appeal on all grounds, stating: 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.”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. In the judgment written by Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens, they said: “For some time, judges have voiced concerns as to the negative effect on an innocent person’s reputation of the publication that he or she is being investigated by the police or an organ of the state.” The issue of whether Meghan was “the sole author”, or whether Jason Knauf, formerly communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was a “co-author”, should be determined at a trial, despite being something “of minor significance in the overall context”, the judge said.

Privacy) Ordinance - Office of the Privacy The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance - Office of the Privacy

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. The data protection class action against Google which found that they are permissible in the case of DPA breaches for the Safari Workaround. The case sets a precedent for representative opt-out style class actions for data protection breaches under UK law. An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. INFORRM had a case comment. Coverage from legal outlets was broad including Matrix Chambers, DLA Piper, Linklaters and Farrer & Co. 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.

iPhone 12 Privacy Case dimensions:

Representative actions of this kind seeking damages are not appropriate for claims of this nature, and whilst these remain possible (i.e. by seeking a declaration of liability, including a declaration that any member of the represented class who has suffered damage by reason of the breach is entitled to be paid compensation, with damages then being assessed individually at a later stage), the scope for bringing such claims has now been reduced. A friend of Kaye had been granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the editor (Anthony Robertson) and the Sunday Sport from using the material; they appealed.

Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia

Confirmation that representatives are not liable for breaches by the data controller or data processor and remedies should be sought directly.In a statement, Meghan said: “After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and the Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanising practices. Data persistence – data existing longer than the human subjects that created it, driven by low data storage costs 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.

Bloomberg loses landmark UK supreme court case on privacy

Fearn and others (Appellants) v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (Respondent) Case ID: 2020/0056 Case summary Issue In his judgment, Lord Justice Warby found for Meghan in her claim for misuse of private information against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail on Sunday (MoS) and Mail Online, over five articles in February 2019 that included extracts from the letter. He said: “It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant’s own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father’s behaviour – as she saw it – and the resulting rift between them. These are inherently private and personal matters.They said there is a “uniform general practice” by bodies such as the police not to identify those under investigation before laying charges due to the risk of unfair damage to their reputation. The claimant recorded the inside of a Latvian police station whist he was there giving a statement. It was contested by the Latvian Data Protection Agency that this infringed Latvian data protection laws. The CJEU found that an individual filming police officers undertaking their duties in a police station and posting it online constituted processing of personal data, but may be covered by the journalistic purposes exemption under the Data Protection Directive. DLA Piper and the Panopticon Blog have analysis. The court held for the defendant that no such liability existed, as (a) the GDPR would have referred to ‘representative liability’“ more clearly in its operative provisions” had it intended to impose this, (b) Representatives do not have power over controllers or processors “ on a day to day basis over how and why data are processed”, and (c) the European Data Protection Board (“ EDPB”) guidelines state Representatives are “ not responsible for complying with data subject rights”. As such, the remedies sought could only be obtained directly from WorldCo.