tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68677021754611630362024-03-12T21:48:55.291-07:00TechLaw TrackerThe Blog For Technology & LawAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-69608394659493969862017-06-21T10:09:00.000-07:002017-06-21T10:09:44.350-07:00Online Filesharing Platform Is Making Available To The Public<h4>
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ECJ C-610/15</span></span></h4>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice decided that the making available and the provision of an online file-sharing platform (here "The Pirate Bay") is effectively an act of "making available" of the works in accordance with the copyright directive 2001/29/EC.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The files uploaded by users of the platform for file-sharing reasons are predominantly copyright protected works, the sharing of which the rights holders did not permit the platform suppliers or the users of the platform.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Article 3 section 1 of the EC directive expressly includes in the right of the creator of a work to decide about the communication of his work to the public the right to decide about the making available of the work to the public. The Court found that even though the respective works were uploaded by the users of the online file-sharing platform, the supplier of the platform intentionally played a decisive role in the making available of the works. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-29550996717154358502017-01-09T09:23:00.000-08:002017-01-09T09:23:33.374-08:00ECJ Holds General Obligation For Telecoms To Retain Data Invalid.<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ECJ C- 203 / 15</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice held that EU Member States may not impose a general obligation to retain data on
telecommunications companies.
According to the ECJ, EU law does not allow a general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and
location data. Member States may, however, adopt legislation providing for
the targeted retention of such data as a preventative measure for the purpose of fighting serious
crime, provided that such retention is limited to what is strictly necessary. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This judgment follows the ECJ's judgment in 2014, invalidating the Data Retention Directive on the
grounds that it seriously interferes with fundamental rights. Despite this ruling, several Member States
believed that they were not prevented from keeping or enacting national data retention laws. This
gave rise to two preliminary ruling procedures regarding the national data retention laws of Sweden
and the United Kingdom (C-203/15 and C-698/15); both cases which were joined by the ECJ and
resulted in the present judgment</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-31619935120575316272016-10-24T05:56:00.000-07:002016-10-24T05:56:10.543-07:00Dynamic IP Address Can Be Personal Data<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ECJ C-582 / 14</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice had to look again at the legal question whether IP addresses are personal data under European data protection laws. This time it was not the internet service provider of a user holding its IP address but a social media provider which would allocate dynamic IP addresses to visitors of its website. The dynamic IP address alone would not enable the social media provider to determine the identity of the user. It would require in addition the personal data stored by the visitor's internet service provider. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court found the fact that the online service provider itself did not hold all necessary information for the identification of the data subject not enough to negate the assumption of the dynamic IP address being personal data because the law would expressly include also the indirect determination of a data subject's identity. However, it found decisive whether the possibility to combine a dynamic IP address with the additional data held by the internet service provider constitutes a means likely reasonably to be used to identify the data subject. T</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">his would not be the case if for example the identification of the data subject was prohibited by law or practically impossible on account of the fact that it requires disproportional effort.</span></span><br />
<div class="C01PointnumeroteAltN" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 28.35pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.95pt;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-37498858487994663452016-10-17T08:17:00.001-07:002016-10-19T07:45:08.168-07:00Exhaustion Principle Only For Original Copy (CD)<h4>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">EuGH C - 166 / 15</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The first buyer of a copy of a software with the license to unrestricted use can resell the used copy (CD 1) and the license to a second buyer. If the original physical copy of software (CD 1) is damaged, destroyed or lost then the first buyer may resell his back up copy (CD 2) of the software to the second buyer only with the consent of the copyright holder. The principle of exhaustion only applies to the original copy (CD).</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-6337634942606500242016-09-26T07:56:00.003-07:002016-09-26T07:56:40.118-07:00Provider Of Free Public WiFi Not Liable for IP Infringements By Users<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EuGH C-484 / 14</span></h4>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice has found that the provider of a WiFi network, which he provides to the public without charge, cannot be held liable for IP infringements committed by users. He may be ordered though to protect the network by a password to prevent IP infringements. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-71708138676976471902016-09-26T07:42:00.001-07:002016-09-26T07:42:27.682-07:00Hard - and Software Bundle Not Unfair Practice<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EuGH C-310 / 15</span></h4>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice decided that the sale of computer with pre-installed software is not an unfair business practice. The promotion of computer and software bundles meets the expectation of a considerable part of consumers and is therefore not a professional negligence. In such cases consumer also do not expect a separate display of prices which is why the lack of separate display of prices can not be deemed misleading consumers.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-87105207084353555702016-09-26T07:24:00.003-07:002016-09-26T07:24:48.147-07:00Linking Can Be Illegal Display of Protected Work<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EuGH C-160 / 15</span></h4>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice decided that creating a link to works displayed on another website is in itself illegal public display of the works, if the link creator knew that the display on the other website violated IP rights but he still created the link to generate profit.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-69892285959421820352016-09-01T04:10:00.001-07:002016-09-01T04:10:34.695-07:00EU - US Privacy Shield Is Live<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After the EU and the US agreed on the successor agreement to Safe Harbour, called the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EU - US Privacy Shield, US companies may as of August 1, 2016, self certify under the programme </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">as a means of complying with EU data protection laws when transferring EU</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">personal data from the EU to the US.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-75390554909260329522016-09-01T03:53:00.000-07:002016-09-01T03:53:19.129-07:00EU Commission Finds Apple Tax Benefits in Ireland Illegal<br />
<span style="font-family: arial, "sans serif";">On 30th of August the European Commission issued a statement about its decision that Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13 billion to Apple. This is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it allowed Apple to pay substantially less tax than other businesses. Ireland must now recover the illegal aid from Apple. </span><span style="font-family: arial, "sans serif";">There are no fines under EU State aid rules and recovery does not penalise the company in question. It simply restores equal treatment with other companies.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-46063026815938766092016-06-15T02:55:00.003-07:002016-06-15T02:55:50.072-07:00EU Code of Conduct Against Illegal Online Hate Speech<h3>
EU-Commission, PM IP/16/1937 of 31/5/2016</h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The EU Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube have published a Code of Conduct which contains a number of obligations to tackle illegal online hate speech in Europe. By signing this Code the aforementioned IT companies commit to a sustainable internal hate-speech policy which shall lead to a review and deletion of illegal online hate speeches within 24 hours as well as the closing down of illegally used accesses to those communication platforms.</span><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-41786800535959042662016-06-14T06:12:00.000-07:002016-06-14T06:12:07.866-07:00Companies Fined For Not Replacing Safe Harbor<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hamburg Data Protection Agency</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the Safe Harbor program is invalid, the European DPAs granted companies a transitory period until February to migrate from the Safe Harbor to other legal tools for their international data transfers, in particular by implementing Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) or the Model Contractual Clauses. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Hamburg Data Protection Agency (DPA), which effectively takes the lead in the German DPAs' response to Safe Harbour and the Privacy Shield, recently investigated 35 companies. It found significant shortcomings in that respect and has started to fine those for not having appropriate replacements for the Safe Harbor in place after the expiration of the permitted grace period.</span> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-51240035500685824252016-03-01T06:49:00.001-08:002016-03-01T06:49:39.727-08:00EU Commission Publishes Legal Text Of EU-U.S. Privacy Shield<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 20px;">The European Commission made public a draft "adequacy decision" of the Commission as well as the texts that will constitute the </span><strong style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">EU-U.S. Privacy Shield</strong><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 20px;"> after the Safe-Harbour treaty was found invalid by the European Court of Justice. This includes the Privacy Shield Principles companies have to abide by, as well as written commitments by the U.S. Government (to be published in the U.S. Federal Register) on the enforcement of the arrangement, including assurance on the safeguards and limitations concerning access to data by public authorities.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a next step a committee composed of representatives of the Member States will be consulted and the EU Data Protection Authorities (Article 29 Working Party) will give their opinion, before a final decision by the College. In the meantime, the U.S. side will make the necessary preparations to put in place the new framework, monitoring mechanisms and the new Ombudsperson mechanism.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-9941666681195369462015-10-06T09:10:00.000-07:002015-10-06T09:10:16.405-07:00European Court Finds Safe-Harbour Agreement Between US And EU Invalid<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ECJ C - 362 / 14</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice has found the Safe-Harbour Agreement between the European Union and the United States to be invalid.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In its decision the court confirms the right and obligation of the national data protection agencies in the EU to probe any transfer of personnel data from the EU to the US. It holds that the EU Commission has no power to restrict the competency of the national data protection agencies in the EU. According to the court the Safe-Harbour rules contain no restrictions of the rights of US agencies to access and process the data. The Safe-Harbour agreement therefore does not prevent violation of basic rights of the affected individuals. It also provides no effective procedures for the individuals to seek legal protection. </span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-12114580875548378892015-09-24T06:27:00.003-07:002015-09-24T06:27:36.029-07:00Right To Forget Against Internet Archive<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">OLG Hamburg 7 U 29 / 12</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The higher regional court of Hamburg, Germany, recently handed down a judgement that in its essential legal findings could well be adopted by courts across the EU in the future.<br /><br />The court had to decide a case in which a national newspaper maintained on its website also an online archive containing articles of an older past. The plaintiff requested the deletion of an article in that archive about a closed investigation into a potential criminal offence by him, which could be found by simply typing his name in an online search engine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Weighing up the newspaper's protection under freedom of information and the plaintiffs right of privacy not to be infinitely associated with a potential crime the investigation into which had been closed by just typing his name into any online search engine the court found that both rights are protected if it is only possible and thereby permitted to find the article about the investigation by undertaking a much more detailed search online by place, date and other circumstances and not just by typing his name. </span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-52843044382415489832015-09-24T05:23:00.003-07:002015-09-24T05:23:48.459-07:00Data Protection And ICO Transferred To Department For Culture, Media and Sport<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The policy responsibility for data protection and the sponsorship of the UK Information Commissioner's Office ICO has been transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 17th of September, previously held by the Ministry of Justice. The Information Commissioner commented that it made sense for the ICO to be connected to debates around the digital economy for which the Department for Culture Media and Sport has responsibility.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-28524170671245466432015-08-26T08:58:00.004-07:002015-08-26T08:58:54.957-07:00ICO's First Enforcement Action Against Google for Right To Be Forgotten<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;">The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has made what appears to be its first "right to be forgotten </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;">enforcement action against Google Inc. The ICO issued the notice </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;">on 18 August 2015, ordering Google to remove nine links to news stories about an individual’s criminal offence co</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;">mmitted almost a decade ago.</span></span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25.5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Google has 35 days from the date of the enforcement notice to remove the links from its search results when the individual’s name is searched, or, Google will face further enforcement action. Google has the right to appeal to the U.K.’s First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) against the notice but, so far, the company has refused to comment on whether or not it will appeal.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-81389662610403843622015-06-02T05:46:00.000-07:002015-06-02T05:46:23.619-07:00Adblock Software Is Legal<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">District Court Hamburg 416 HK O 159 / 14</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">District Court Munich 37 O 11637 / 14</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The German Adblock Plus software of Eyo GmbH, which is freely downloadable from the internet and which enables the internet user to block advertisements of the website being visited, has caused major German media companies such as RTL, ProSieben Sat1, Axel Springer, Zeit Online or Handelsblatt to take legal actions at the district courts in Hamburg, Munich and Cologne. The legal issues mainly touch on unfair competition, copyright infringement and anti-trust violation. As these legal matters are quite similarly regulated across EU member states by EU law the decisions by the German courts and argumentations contained in them are of interest for English jurisdiction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Hamburg District Court went first and found that the company does not infringe the rules of fair competition because it allows the user of the software to freely decide by its setting options whether to block advertisements at all or particular ones. It is therefore the user who blocks the ad.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Munich District Court followed the argument of the judges in Hamburg and added that the company does not take part in an infringement by the user of the website owner´s (plaintiffs´) copyrights. The mere visit of the free websites while using the adblock software does not constitute the infringing use of copyrights contained in the website. Also, the company does not violate anti-trust law because its software has not a major market share at this juncture. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-26548716798559964732015-04-29T03:17:00.002-07:002015-04-29T03:17:49.192-07:00ECJ Confirms 210m Euros Fine Against LG Display For Pricing Cartel<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ECJ C - 227 / 14 P</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Justice confirmed the fine of 210 million Euros issued by the European Commission against LG Display in 2010 for creating a pricing cartel for LCD panels in the years 2001 to 2006. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the main questions in this proceeding was if LG Display, which was owned by LG Electronics and Philips, was only an entity of another group company and hence its sales to its mother companies for a fixed price was only an internal matter rather then the external creation of a pricing cartel.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court found that LG Display did not form a vertically integrated group company with LG Electronics and Philips as the various levels of production and sales were not integrated into one. The sales to those mother companies by LG Display were therefore to be seen as transactions with external parties which had to comply with unfair competition law.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-54200939567096678402015-04-09T02:36:00.001-07:002015-04-09T02:36:50.858-07:00UK Serious Fraud Office Fined For Breach Of Data Protection<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21.2799987792969px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a fine of £180,000 against the Serious Fraud Office after a witness in a serious fraud, bribery and corruption investigation was mistakenly sent evidence relating to 64 other people involved in the case.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21.2799987792969px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Serious Fraud Office’s investigation focused on allegations that senior executives at BAE Systems had received payments, including two properties worth over £6 million, as part of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The case was closed in February 2010.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-66773990785231885912015-04-03T05:24:00.003-07:002015-04-03T05:24:44.542-07:00Non-Pecuniary Damages For Data Protection Violation<h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Google Inc. v. Vidal, Hann, Bradshaw [2015] EWCA Civ 311</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court of Appeal had to decide whether individuals could claim compensation for damage and distress caused by Google's data protection violation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Three individuals complained that Google had collected private information about their internet usage without their knowledge or consent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court held that Article 23 of the EU Directive 95/46/EC does not distinguish between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and therefore Section 13 of the Data Protection Act had to be interpreted accordingly. </span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-30501174743595309162015-04-03T05:07:00.003-07:002015-04-03T05:07:49.571-07:00IPO Advice On Exhibition Of Protected Works<span style="color: #3e3d40; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #3e3d40; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">The UK Intellectual Property Office has published a guidance on the public exhibition of copyright works, aimed at libraries, museums, galleries and other institutions which may wish to exhibit works which are copyright protected. The notice is informative and outlines the difference between having literary, dramatic, artistic or musical works on public display, a legitimate act not infringing copyright laws, and performing these works in public, which could constitute copyright infringement.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-81199378506693955802015-04-03T05:01:00.002-07:002015-04-03T05:01:26.336-07:00UK Government Report On Cyber Insurances<br />
<span style="color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The UK Government published a report regarding the management and mitigation of cyber security risks with cyber insurance.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It details how insurers and insurance can play a role in reducing cyber security risks. The government report notes that there is a lack of awareness that insurance is available for cyber risk and recommends that firms review their cyber risk management to include a board-level assessment for cyber risk, and draw up recovery plans and use stress testing to confirm financial resilience against cyber threats. The report also gives details of its new industry supported scheme, Cyber Essentials, which was developed as part of the UK’s National Cyber Security Program and guides businesses in protecting themselves against cyber threats</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-13359486472117715442015-04-03T04:48:00.002-07:002015-04-03T04:48:56.876-07:002015 UK Budget To Fund Key Technologies<br />
<div style="border: 0px; color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UK Chancellor George Osborne announced a number of measures affecting the digital and technology sectors in the Budget.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Among others t<span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;">he government plans to invest up to £600m to reallocate spectrum so as to open up the 700 MHz spectrum for further use in 4G networks, and to improve 4G coverage nationwide. I</span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;">nvestment of £100m over five years in ‘intelligent mobility’, including driverless car technology, is planned which will be matched by the industry itself. </span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;">An investment of £40m in research into the Internet of Things</span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;">, which will provide a research incubator, demonstrator programmes to encourage new ideas, and research hubs. The research aims to focus in particular on IoT applications in health and smart cities. The UK also</span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;"> will apply anti-money laundering regulations to digital currencies.Funding for research </span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 15.6000003814697px;">into both the risks and opportunities of digital currencies will also be increased by £10m.</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-16189776637303927302015-03-20T11:06:00.000-07:002015-03-20T11:06:09.583-07:00FCA Guidance On Financial Promotions On Social Media<div style="border: 0px; color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a guidance on using social media for financial promotions.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The FCA made it clear that they understand the power of social media as a communication tool and the benefit it can have for both firms and their customers. It also emphasised that any communications via social media had to meet the FCA’s requirements of being, among other things, “fair, clear and not misleading” in exactly the same way as traditional media.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #3e3d40; line-height: 15.6000003814697px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The guidance is a reminder that any communication, also on social media, is likely to be deemed a financial promotion if it includes any invitation or inducement to engage in financial activity. One of the challenges provided by social media, as opposed to the more traditional forms of communication, is that of controlling who receives any promotion.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867702175461163036.post-14367367184964766672015-03-02T04:31:00.002-08:002015-03-02T04:31:52.530-08:001 Billion Data Records Compromised In 2014<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.314em;">Data breaches increased 49% with almost 1 billion data records compromised in 1,500 attacks in 2014 – a 78% increase in the number of data records either lost or stolen in 2013, a new report by leading digital security firm Gemalto reveals</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.314em;">. The Netherlands-based firm said about 575 million records were compromised in 2013.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.314em; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.314em;"><br />Identity theft was by far the largest type of attack, with 54% of the breaches involving the theft of personal data, up from 23% in 2013.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.314em; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Among the largest data thefts incurred by companies in 2014 were retail chain Home Depot with 109 million records containing email addresses stolen in a hacker attack, financial service provider Morgan Stanley suffered an identity theft with 83 million records being stolen and online market place Ebay lost 145 million records in an identity theft.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.314em; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
In Europe the UK was affected by the majority of incidents with 109 breaches. In comparison Germany incurred only 7 recorded data breaches.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01320963104479393925noreply@blogger.com0