The “Forgotten Terrorists”, another piece of nonsense on the Times front page – Evan Harris

13 11 2014

TimesThe main headline on the front page of yesterday’s Times tells us that “Terrorists are exploiting the ‘right to be forgotten’”. It is a striking headline and, like the Times’ front page story three weeks ago about the police using a “loophole to hack phones”, it is total nonsense. Read the rest of this entry »





Dutch Google Spain ruling: More Freedom of Speech, Less Right To Be Forgotten For Criminals – Joran Spauwen and Jens van den Brink

27 09 2014

Google-logoLast week, the Court of Amsterdam in preliminary relief proceedings got a chance to shed light on the consequences of the much-discussed Google Spain (or Costeja) judgment of the Court of Justice EU in the Netherlands. As far as we are aware, this is the first time that a national court was asked to apply the Google Spain ruling. The proceedings in Amsterdam centred on one of the many ‘right to be forgotten’ requests Google received after the Google Spain judgment. Read the rest of this entry »





The right be forgotten roadshow and the power of Google – Paul Bernal

21 09 2014

igooglemagesI read with interest Professor Luciano Floridi’s report from the first two legs of what the Guardian described as ‘Google’s privacy ethics tour of Europe’. Floridi is Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the Oxford Internet Institute, and one of the experts appointed by Google to its ‘Advisory Council’ on the right to be forgotten. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Luxembourg: Papasavvas, Civil liability for Internet publishing: the CJEU clarifies the law – Lorna Woods

16 09 2014

LUXEMBOURG : Institutions Europeennes + VilleThe CJEU judgment in Papasavvas handed down on 11 September 2014 is the most recent in a line of cases seeking to trace the edges of the concept of ‘intermediary’ for the purposes of EU information technology law, a question that has become rather more problematic than when the eCommerce Directive was first drafted in 2000. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Luxembourg: Deckmyn v Vandersteen, Court broadens concept of parody, and returns the hot potatoes to the national court – Dirk Voorhoof and Inger Høedt-Rasmussen

8 09 2014

image1The case of Deckmyn v Vandersteen (Case C-201/13) on parody considers a set of questions related to the right to freedom of expression conflicting with copyright, and the impact of the Information Society (Infosoc) Directive 2001/29.  In particular, it raises the question whether the parody exception must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, despite the optional nature of the parody exception mentioned in Article 5(3)(k) of the Directive 2001/29.

Read the rest of this entry »





A right to delete – not a right to be forgotten… Paul Bernal

8 08 2014

delete-buttonOne of the many things people are getting angry about the ‘right to be forgotten’ is in the name… something that I’ve been banging on about for some years. I talk about the right quite a lot in my book Internet Privacy Rights… so I thought I’d just give a quick flavour of it. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Chapter 7: Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: AB v Ministry of Justice, Subject access requests and compensation – Helen Mulligan and Owen O’Rorke

25 07 2014

data-protection-and-cyberThe right to access to one’s own “personal data”, subject to certain exemptions and limitations, has now been part of UK law for some 30 years. Under the current Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) an individual dissatisfied with the response to his or her “subject access request” (or “SAR”) can effectively choose whether to enforce those rights via the courts, or via the UK regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”). Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,021 other followers