INFORRM has an excellent two part post on Meghan Markle’s action for misuse of private information against the Associated Newspapers. Continue reading
The piece provides a succinct summary of the most influential cases throughout the year, caselaw which will likely impact the regulatory space for years to come.
The article considers the privacy implications of crypto-currency transactions. It highlights the issues surrounding logging each transaction in a publically available manner and concerns around behavioural modelling.
The article considers the providers Monero and Zcash in particular.
Google Cloud has been providing Ascension, the second biggest healthcare provider in the US, with cloud infrastructure services since July 2019. Providing software services to healthcare providers to facilitate the secure management of patient data is not uncommon for Google. The services Ascension are taking are similarly commonplace- the migration of data to Google Cloud, utilizing suite productivity tools and providing technological tools to Ascension’s doctors for use. What perhaps is the defining factor is the scale, with this being the largest project of its kind to date – managing data of over 50 million Americans. This was dubbed “Project Nightingale”.
This was taken from the case of Puttaswamy v Union of India. The case entrenched the right to privacy under Indian law. The infographic provides a useful means for distilling the concept of privacy and it’s scope.
Personal data, such as your name, likeness, birthday or any other information which can be used to identify you is highly sensitive.
Protecting and bringing actions on the basis of your personal data being harvested, used or misused is a key foundational right to privacy. Continue reading
Law firm Brabners LLP has just issued a claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court against the Sun on behalf of client Ben Stokes. The claim is for misuse of private information in relation to an article run by the outlet which examined elements of the cricketers family life. Continue reading
Following issuing a strong statement denouncing the British Press on 01 October 2019 Prince Harry has launched his own legal claim against news outlets the Sun, News of the World and Daily Mirror for phone hacking.
The case comes following his spouse Meghan Markle issuing proceedings against the Mail on Sunday on grounds of misuse of private information, breach of copyright and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Many practitioners will be aware of the leading phone hacking case of Gulati, which covered historic News of the World phone hacking. This set the bar for damages at £10,000 per year of serious phone hacking. The case set out standardised elements and covered awards for a variety of famous claimants.
Prince Harry is set to be the latest of these claimants in a series of litigation the likes which is unprecedented from the Royal Family. It is now apparent why his statement was so strong worded. This is the most significant action of the Royal Family against the press to date.
The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, is suing Associated Newspapers (parent company of the Mail on Sunday) for misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The official statement on the matter can be found on the Duke and Duchess’ website. The action comes after the Mail on Sunday ran an article in February 2019 publishing a personal letter from the Duchess to her father.
The Duchess has turned to specialist reputation management law firm Schillings, which issued the following statement:
“We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda”.
The case is being privately funded with any proceeds being donated to an anti-bullying charity.
The Supreme Court has heard a case on establishing the meaning of the statement “he tried to strangle me”. The case concerned and exchange between Mrs Stocker and an Ms Bligh (then Mr Stocker’s partner) on Facebook in which Mrs Stocker alleged that Mr Stocker tried to strangle her.
In this context, Mrs Stocker also alleged that Mr Stocker had been removed from the house following issuing threats against her, that there were some “gun issues” and that the police had determined he had breached a non-molestation order. Continue reading