Data Retention – update
By way of update to my earlier data retention post, five points. …
Author: Eoin
Dr Eoin O'Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.
Academic freedom under threat?
Two recent Oxbridge stories caught my eye. First, Daithí has a characteristically perceptive and wide-ranging post on a demand by students in Oxford for the dismissal of Prof David Coleman because of his (unpopular) connections with Migration Watch. The whole point of academic freedom (DHI | Human Rights Watch | wikipedia) is the right to think unpopular thoughts. They can be wrong, or wrongheaded – many, if not most, ideas fall into this category. But the fundamental cornerstone of academic enquiry is that they can be thought. Once articulated, they can be met, and their wrongness or wrongheadedness demonstrated. Student Action for Refugees (STAR) would do better to counter Migration Watch in debate and argument, and thus to persuade those still open to persuasion, than shrilly to seek Prof Coleman’s dismissal and in the process potentially turn off the persuadeble middle ground.
Second, in Cambridge, the boot is on the other foot. Legal Scribbles reports (following on from an earlier post) that students have been questioned under caution by the police on suspicion of having committed an offence contrary to s5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for having published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.…
Senator Norris and the Defamation Bill
The Defamation Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) is currently being debated in the Seanad (Senate). The system of giving a Bill various readings (BBC | wikipedia) refers to an ancient practice in the House of Commons by which a Bill would actually be read out, first when it was introduced (the first reading), again whilst it was being debated (the second reading), and finally in its form for enactment after amendment (the third reading). More recently, a further stage, a committee stage, is often interposed between second and third readings: if the second reading debates the general principles of a Bill, then the detailed section-by-section scrutiny will take place at committee stage. Bills are usually initiated in the Dáil (lower House), and then reviewed in the Seanad, but the Government has in the last few years demonstrated a tendency to introduce Bills in the Seanad first, often for the purposes of detailed consideration and debate before being sent to the Dáil. The reason for this system of various readings of Bills in both Houses of the Oireachtas (ie, the Parliament) is to allow Bills to be publicly scrutinized and debated, and the Defamation Bill is currently undergoing that process with a detailed committee stage in the Seanad in which Senator David Norris (Ind, representing the University of Dublin (Trinity College); pictured left; website | blog) has made several energetic interventions – in the process, he has made one excellent point and one wrong-headed one.…
Defamation Bill in the Seanad, or, where are the ISPs?
The Defamation Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) was introduced in the Seanad (Senate; pictured left) on 7 July 2006, and its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) can be followed here. The second reading began on 6 December 2006 with a set-piece debate, of rather predictable if occasionally interesting speeches, which rather got lost in the coverage of that day’s Budget; and the committee stage continued on 20 and 28 February 2007 with some conventional skirmishing and the occasional grand-standing set-piece battle. The terms of the Bill were outlined briefly in my previous post, so I’d like in this post and the next to turn to a consideration of some of the comments made on the Bill during the Seanad debates so far.
Senator Joanna Tuffy (Labour) (website | blog) suggested an amendment to the Bill to protect those, such as secretaries, who type letters on behalf of others, so that if the letter turns out to be defamatory, the plaintiff has to sue the author not the secretary (see 186 Seanad Debates cols 288-290 (20 February 2007); html | pdf). …
Defamation Bill slopes towards enactment
The Defamation Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) was before the Seanad again during the week. In my next post, I’ll consider some of the points made during that debate; in this post, by way of background, I want to set out the Bill’s main provisions. It aims to modernise Irish defamation law, and it is certainly an advance on what is there now. However, it is still ungenerous, and it remains to be seen whether its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas will improve it (or, God help us, not!).…
Today is …
1 March (BBC | Wikipedia), and thus St David’s Day in Wales (perhaps, then an appropriate – or unfortunate – day for Welsh police to uncover a large illegal distillery in Cardiff), but it’s also: … …
Ducks, potatoes, blockheads
This week’s Economist has a short report (subscription required) to the effect that:
…Poland’s governing Law and Justice party is suing the country’s former president, Lech Walesa, for defamation. Mr Walesa called the current incumbent, Lech Kaczynski [official Polish Presidency site (in English) | his own site (in Polish)], a “blockhead” in a row over a report on alleged criminal activity and Russian influence in the country’s now disbanded military-intelligence service.
Data Retention – US style
Digital Rights Ireland (of which I am a Director) is making the running against Irish and European data retention legislation (see, for example, Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005 in Ireland, and the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC).
However, and unfortunately, Ireland is not the only country in which government seeks to compel the retention of its citizens’ traffic data; in fact, the phenomenon of data retention is fast becoming ubiquituous; unsurprisingly, therefore, it’s happening too in the US. The Centre for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has just published an analysis of various bills pending before the Congress (pdf) in which the legitimate aim of the protection of children online is used as cover for alarming government intrusion on all aspects of online life. Given that law enforcement agencies want to be able to monitor significant traffic data (to say nothing of the traffic itself), it is perhaps to be expected that they should attempt to justify that end on this child-protection basis. However, reflecting a CDT report (pdf) of last June on data retention generally, this week’s report cogently summarizes the case against data retention in language as applicable in Ireland and Europe as it is in the US.…
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress