Consent is also not as powerful a tool as one may be led to believe, even if the requirements for consent are that it is informed and freely given. The Clearview AI example shows that consent was not sought as much as it should have been according to the OPC. As a similar example, Microsoft removed its database of 10 million facial photographs – which were being used by organizations like IBM, Panasonic, Alibaba, military researchers and Chinese surveillance firms – as most of the people whose faces were in the dataset were not aware their image had been included.

Privacy) Ordinance - Office of the Privacy The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance - Office of the Privacy

The Tate Modern opened an extension in 2016 called the Blavatnik Building. The Blavatnik building is ten stories high and, on its top floor, has a viewing platform which offers panoramic views of London. The Appellants own flats neighbouring the Tate Modern which are of a similar elevation to the Blavatnik building and whose walls are mainly made of glass. On the southside of the viewing platform, visitors to the Tate can see directly into the flats of the Appellants. R (Open Rights Group and the 3 million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800, The duchess sued Associated Newspapers in September 2019 over five articles in the MoS and Mail Online that were billed as a “world exclusive” featuring “Meghan’s shattering letter to her father”. The Court found that, in providing the option, “Don’t save my Location History in my Google Account”, represented to some reasonable consumers that they could prevent their location data being saved on their Google Account. In actual fact, users need to change an additional setting, separate, to stop their location data being saved to their Google Account.

iPhone 12 Privacy Case dimensions:

These tactics – and those of their sister publications Mail Online and the Daily Mail – are not new … For these outlets, it’s a game. For me and so many others, it’s real life, real relationships and very real sadness. The damage they have done and continue to do runs deep. The Court was asked a number of questions, all of which broadly related to the question of how the prohibitions on processing sensitive personal data under the Directive applied to search engines. The claimants wished to have various results from searches of their names dereferenced from Google’s search results. The Court concluded that there was no blanket prohibition on the processing of sensitive personal data by search engines under the Data Protection Directive, thus refusing to compel the dereferencing of results. The European Law Blog has commentary. Essentially, whilst it might have been proportionate to disclose and publish a very small part of the Letter to rebut inaccuracies in the People Article, it was not necessary to deploy half the contents of the Letter as Associated Newspapers did. As the Articles themselves demonstrate, and as the judge found, the primary purpose of the Articles was not to publish Mr Markle’s responses to the inaccurate allegations against him in the People Article. The true purpose of the publication was, as the first 4 lines of the Articles said: to reveal for the first time [to the world] the “[t]he full content of a sensational letter written by [the Duchess] to her estranged father shortly after her wedding”. The contents of the Letter were private when it was written and when it was published, even if the claimant, it now appears, realised that her father might leak its contents to the media.” [106]

Privacy Violations in Artificial - ISACA Beware the Privacy Violations in Artificial - ISACA

It was legitimate for Markle and the defendant to use a part of the letter to rebut a false suggestion in the People article that the letter represented some form of “olive branch” from the duchess to her father, he said. But it was the “inescapable conclusion” that it was neither “necessary or proportionate” to disclose the rest of the information in the letter, he added. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the claimants were entitled to a remedy in the tort of private nuisance by reason of the Tate Modern’s use of the top floor of its Blavatnik Building as a viewing platform. Facts In a statement, Meghan said: “After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and the Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanising practices. It was held that, in relation to claims under the GDPR and DPA 2018, no remedy is available to claimants where “no harm has credibly been shown or [would] be likely to be shown” and that “in the modern world it is not appropriate for a party to claim (especially in the High Court) for breaches of this sort which are, quite frankly, trivial”. The court held for the defendant that no such liability existed, as (a) the GDPR would have referred to ‘representative liability’“ more clearly in its operative provisions” had it intended to impose this, (b) Representatives do not have power over controllers or processors “ on a day to day basis over how and why data are processed”, and (c) the European Data Protection Board (“ EDPB”) guidelines state Representatives are “ not responsible for complying with data subject rights”. As such, the remedies sought could only be obtained directly from WorldCo.The claimant recorded the inside of a Latvian police station whist he was there giving a statement. It was contested by the Latvian Data Protection Agency that this infringed Latvian data protection laws. The CJEU found that an individual filming police officers undertaking their duties in a police station and posting it online constituted processing of personal data, but may be covered by the journalistic purposes exemption under the Data Protection Directive. DLA Piper and the Panopticon Blog have analysis. The businessman in Wednesday’s ruling successfully argued that, under the European convention on human rights, he had a reasonable expectation that the details of the British regulator’s criminal investigation into him would not be made public unless he was charged with an offence. The Court agreed that limb one was met on the facts. However, the Court found that Mr Peters did not have a reasonable expectation of protection from disclosure of this information within MSD and from MSD to the relevant Ministers and select staff. As the claimant could not prove that any of defendants had released information to the media. The appeal was dismissed. The case affirmed the removal of the requirement for there to be widespread disclosure and the potential for the removal of the requirement that disclosure be highly offensive. News organisations should also apply caution where publishing information which has (a) been created in circumstances which may be argued to be private and (b) not previously entered the public domain.