Monday, June 11, 2007

Sharing out online liability: sharing files, sharing risks

The privacy interest





  1. Anonymous14 June, 2007


    The question remains though is a constitutional privacy shield really usable in situations where the 'common good and policy' potentially could trump the argument, and additionally is personal data actually placed as a stored requirement? I suggest that personal data is not in-fact stored under 2005 Act, but data that may lead to or be connected to, in some ancillary way a natural person. The ECHR is a waste of space to this end as well despite Copland v UK decision and ors.


    This may depend on the nature of the invasion of privacy. The article suggests that there is a distinction between the Eircom v. EMI scenario (narrow court ordered identification of specified users) and the broader MediaSentry approach (which is, in effect, an extra judicial fishing expedition), so that the courts may be willing to sanction one and not the other.


    This depends on your concept of personal data and the purpose for which you're using that concept. Under data protection law the call details are clearly personal data in that they constitute "data relating to a living individual who can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information in the possession of the data controller". For the purposes of the ECHR and the Constitution, provided we can identify the persons making and receiving telephone calls, emails, etc. then it seems to me that we have an Article 8 privacy issue as well as an issue under our unenumerated right to privacy.

  3. Anonymous07 July, 2008

    I wonder how you see the EU involvement on Privacy on line panning out