Facebook and Privacy
Via Chris Slane‘s wonderful Privacy Cartoon Portfolio, a poster for last month’s Privacy Awareness Week in New Zealand:
 |
…
Category: Privacy
The good, the bad, and the ugly
Three stories from today’s Irish Times caught my eye. First, the good. The Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman launched their first annual report yesterday. The press industry undoubtedly did a good thing in establishing the Press Council and the Ombudsman, and yesterday’s report on the first year of operation shows the wisdom of that decision. The launch of the report is covered in the Home News section of the Irish Times, and welcomed in the lead editorial . From the report [with added links]:
Praise for complaints system after release of Press Ombudsman’s report
AGGRIEVED READERS made over 370 complaints about newspapers and magazines last year during the Press Ombudsman‘s first year of work, his annual report reveals. … Reviewing the performance of the Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman in their annual report published yesterday, council chairman Prof Tom Mitchell said the innovative and effective regulatory system offered significant benefits to the press and public. …
Moreover, speaking at the launch, the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, said he hoped that the long-delayed Defamation Bill, 2006 would become law by the summer, an aspiration which Prof Mitchell greeted as “wonderful news”.…
Covert surveillance, privilege, and iniquity
- Caption: Hey boss. I’m not sure our covert surveillance is real covert any more
In general, the public interest in the proper administration of justice requires that people called as witnesses before courts must answer all questions put to them, on pain of being held in contempt of court. However, the common law has recognised some exceptions, such as the privilege of the police to be able to refuse to identify their sources, or that of lawyers or doctors to refuse to answer questions about conversations with clients. In such cases, there is a countervailing public interest in favour of encouraging full disclosure between the parties to the relationship. The categories of relationship which attract such privilege are controversial; it has been claimed to cover the relationship between journalists and their sources, or that between priests and their penitents – some jurisdictions recognise these extensions, some don’t (in Ireland – exceptionally in both cases – the former is an open question, and the latter is recognised).
In the way of these things, I have come across two interesting contributions to the deabte about the nature of such evidential privileges. In the first, In re McE [2009] UKHL 15 (11 March 2009) (also here) the House of Lords (Lord Hope, Baroness Hale, Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger for the majority; Lord Phillips dissenting) held that that the the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) allows for covert surveillance of communications between lawyers and their clients, even where these are covered by legal professional privilege.…
Data retention ironies
I can’t make up my mind whether it’s ironic or not that the European Court of Justice has upheld the Data Retention Directive on Safer Internet Day.
I’ll let Digital Rights Ireland tell the story:
…European Court upholds data retention… for the time being
The European Court of Justice has given its decision today in the Irish Government challenge to the Data Retention Directive – [Case C-301/06] Ireland v. Parliament and Council (Press Release | Judgment). Unsurprisingly (in light of the Advocate General’s Opinion) it has held that the directive was properly adopted as an internal market measure (by qualified majority voting) rather than as a criminal matter (requiring unanimity). Where does this leave us and our case?
While it’s a pity to see the Directive upheld, the Government’s challenge was a very narrow one, dealing only with the essentially technical matter of the legal basis for the Directive. The Government didn’t raise and the ECJ wasn’t asked to decide on the fundamental rights issues. Indeed it expressly stated:
The Court notes at the outset that the action brought by Ireland relates solely to the choice of legal basis and not to any possible infringement by the directive of fundamental rights resulting from interference with the exercise of the right to privacy.
ECHR on Arts 6, 8 and 10
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was promulgated by the Council of Europe in 1950. The European Court of Human Rights was established under that Convention to enforce the rights protected by it, and it has recently handed down three very interesting judgments concerning Articles 6 (fair trial), 8 (privacy), and 10 (speech).
Article 6(1) provides that
… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. …
ECHR blog brings news of Application no 22330/05 Olujic v Croatia (05/02/2009), in which adverse public comments by three judges in advance of hearing a case against the applicant denied him a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6. What makes the case all the more interesting is that Olujic had been President of the Supreme Court, the case concerned his dismissal from the bench for publicly fraternising with known criminals, the three judges had publicly and adversely commented about this after the allegations had been made, and one had been a rival candidate for the Presidency of the Court.
Article 8(1) provides:
…Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Data protection, sentencing, experts, judges
/039985CF069B55A380256DA900467820/$FILE/heritage_link1.gif)
Law reports from today’s Irish Times:
Data Commissioner’s prosecution can go ahead
Realm Communications Ltd v Data Protection Commissioner: High Court, Judgment was given by Mr Justice McCarthy on 9 January 2009 [2009] IEHC 1
The Data Protection Commissioner did not act unlawfully in issuing summonses against a company using text messages for marketing purposes (Realm) without the consent of the recipients, without having first sought to arrange an amicable resolution between the company and the complainants.
Suspended sentence for burglary not wrong in principle
DPP v de Paor and Zdanowski: Court of Criminal Appeal. Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 19 December 2008 [2008] IECCA 137
An application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the suspended sentence of five years for robbery and false imprisonment imposed on Cuan de Paor – on the grounds that it was unduly lenient – was refused.
Coming to terms with greater role of expert is an edited version of Mrs Justice Fidelma Macken’s remarks at the recent launch of the Law Reform Commission‘s Consultation Paper on expert evidence (pdf).
In short: US Supreme Court upholds immunity of prosecutors [the case is here]; EU Commission criticised; Seminar on construction law; Criminal law conference; Law Society complaints committee; New managing partner at Eversheds
Bonus links from today’s Times Online: Forcing out judges at 70 ‘threatens supreme court’ (the Irish judicial retirement age is also 70); The law lords who served their time (the longest-serving Irish judge was Christopher Palles, Chief Baron of the Exchequer for 42 years between 1874 and 1916).…
Happy Data Privacy Day, 2009!
Via Ghosts in the machine, Slaw, Toby Stephens, and the BBC (update: see also here), I am reminded that today, January 28, is Data Privacy Data (about which I have blogged in previous years). There is an extensive Council of Europe site; there is an Irish page here; and both Intel and Google are stepping up to the plate. Isn’t it about time that the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner was upgraded into a fully fledged Office of Privacy Protection?
Bonus links: I’ve already mentioned the most recent privacy recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission on this blog; at around the same time, the British Columbia Law Institute issued a Report on the BC Privacy Act, and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission issued a Consultation Paper on NSW privacy legislation. Our own Law Reform Commission’s report on privacy dates from 1998, and is in need of updating and enactment.…
Privacy, refugees, children
Law reports from today’s Irish Times:
Photos of sex offender may not be published
Callaghan v Independent News and Media Ltd: Northern Ireland High Court, Judgment was given by Mr Justice Stephens on January 7th, 2009 [2009] NIQB 1
An unpixelated photograph of sex murderer Kenneth Callaghan, from which he could be identified, cannot be published. Mr Callaghan has served 21 years of a life sentence and is due for supervised release, and Mr Justice Stephens ruled that the publication of such a photograph, by disrupting his supervision and support regime, would increase the risk to the public by increasing his risk of re-offending. He granted a separate order that no photograph of any prisoner in the Prisoner Assessment Unit of the Northern Ireland Prison Service could be published without 48 hours’ notice. …
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress