<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do we now have a law of privacy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/</link>
	<description>daithí mac síthigh, university of east anglia, norwich, england</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Blawg Review #245 &#171; Charon QC</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-6775</link>
		<dc:creator>Blawg Review #245 &#171; Charon QC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/?p=1316#comment-6775</guid>
		<description>[...] Lex Ferenda asks: Do we now have a law of privacy? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Lex Ferenda asks: Do we now have a law of privacy? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eoin</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-6758</link>
		<dc:creator>Eoin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/?p=1316#comment-6758</guid>
		<description>So, do we? What did Eady J say?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, do we? What did Eady J say?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lilian</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-6710</link>
		<dc:creator>Lilian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/?p=1316#comment-6710</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d really like to get to that - will explore trains...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d really like to get to that &#8211; will explore trains&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronan</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/04112009/do-we-now-have-a-law-of-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-6699</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/?p=1316#comment-6699</guid>
		<description>Daithi - 

Timely, due to the European Council has approving a new data breach notification rule for EU telecos. The amendments will force telcos to tell customers if they lose their data.

I say I have to agree with Eady J. and Tugendhat J. a Media and Privacy Law advocate (QC) is also heading in that direction.

See: RST v UVW [2009] EWHC B24 (QB), 11 September 2009. or http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/B24.html

UK High Court granted an interim injunction, based on a claim to protect privacy, to prevent disclosure of information about sexual encounters for payment between the applicant (who had some public reputation) and a woman. The woman had subsequently entered into a confidentiality agreement with the applicant regarding the encounters. Tugendhat J noted that the application concerned material which might be defamatory. According to defamation law, no interlocutory injunction would be granted where a defendant was proposing to publish material which he alleged to be true (Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269) (the rule). 

I have also recently had re-read Wainright v UK and Copland v UK Art 8 ECHR Act cases. Worth some consideration.

While the Applause Store Productions Limited &amp; Matthew Firsht v Grant Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB) - Facebook case and Blarney&#039;s Blarney - Twitter Injunction case, don&#039;t really effect Privacy simpliciter but do effect or encroach on the right to a good name, deceit, confidence and aspects of privacy they display problems in the media and information age.

Bunt v Tilley has wider implications in re. Caching and Database Rights which I find most interesting as well as host defence.

I say yes, in general terms as technology moves privacy becomes more important. One thing that annoys me slightly is the DP Acts tend to have duty of care clauses for breaches of Confidence and Privacy, but the reality is that it is practically impossible to show damage ab initio. It is only when some detriment has accrued that proceeding can flow - I think that this is wrong, on a number of levels, like a res ips argument if you like.

Ronan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daithi &#8211; </p>
<p>Timely, due to the European Council has approving a new data breach notification rule for EU telecos. The amendments will force telcos to tell customers if they lose their data.</p>
<p>I say I have to agree with Eady J. and Tugendhat J. a Media and Privacy Law advocate (QC) is also heading in that direction.</p>
<p>See: RST v UVW [2009] EWHC B24 (QB), 11 September 2009. or <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/B24.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/B24.html</a></p>
<p>UK High Court granted an interim injunction, based on a claim to protect privacy, to prevent disclosure of information about sexual encounters for payment between the applicant (who had some public reputation) and a woman. The woman had subsequently entered into a confidentiality agreement with the applicant regarding the encounters. Tugendhat J noted that the application concerned material which might be defamatory. According to defamation law, no interlocutory injunction would be granted where a defendant was proposing to publish material which he alleged to be true (Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269) (the rule). </p>
<p>I have also recently had re-read Wainright v UK and Copland v UK Art 8 ECHR Act cases. Worth some consideration.</p>
<p>While the Applause Store Productions Limited &amp; Matthew Firsht v Grant Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB) &#8211; Facebook case and Blarney&#8217;s Blarney &#8211; Twitter Injunction case, don&#8217;t really effect Privacy simpliciter but do effect or encroach on the right to a good name, deceit, confidence and aspects of privacy they display problems in the media and information age.</p>
<p>Bunt v Tilley has wider implications in re. Caching and Database Rights which I find most interesting as well as host defence.</p>
<p>I say yes, in general terms as technology moves privacy becomes more important. One thing that annoys me slightly is the DP Acts tend to have duty of care clauses for breaches of Confidence and Privacy, but the reality is that it is practically impossible to show damage ab initio. It is only when some detriment has accrued that proceeding can flow &#8211; I think that this is wrong, on a number of levels, like a res ips argument if you like.</p>
<p>Ronan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
