Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The Right to Private Communication

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby 3.14 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:27 pm

Hairyloon wrote:What is the purpose of this monitoring?
I have mostly not worried about it on the basis that I don't say anything that is of any interest to the government, and that my plans for world domination are best off hidden in plain sight.
Doing nothing wrong, so nothing to hide?
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:35 pm

What I would like to know is whether hairy has actually formulated plans for world domination, or whether it merely occurred to him that he might try dominating the world.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19884
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:43 pm

I've a feeling it involves those dodgy electronic voting booths...
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby diy » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:53 pm

Rule 1-3 are pretty much covered by the US Export Administration Regulations which govern the strength of encryption which can be made available for export. In short the US regard strong encryption as munitions, like bio weapons and you wont get a license to export anything using or that enables the use of strong encryption.

Given almost all software uses components of software developed in the US, you have to live with the idea that if they can't hack it - you can't use it. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying its reality

Alternatively you can source out the <1% that isn't developed in the US and try to use that, which will almost certainly have some sort of rogue feature in, given the origins. Its also an offence in many countries to use such methods without a license.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby 3.14 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:22 pm

3.14 wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:What is the purpose of this monitoring?
I have mostly not worried about it on the basis that I don't say anything that is of any interest to the government, and that my plans for world domination are best off hidden in plain sight.
Doing nothing wrong, so nothing to hide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby 3.14 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:45 pm

Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby b1969 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:01 pm

I'm not sure that Vidal-Hall v Google is particularly relevant here (it's largely about tracking by Google). The case that is very relevant is Schrems & Ors v Facebook, which has been heard in the CJEU and its opinion is awaited. See here: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html
b1969
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby dls » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:26 pm

The Google case is likely to be much bigger than that, though there is a substantial chance that it would not survive an appeal to the Supreme Court, just because it is just such a leap.

The effect is a creation of a new tort whose boundaries are bound to be explored over the next few years - allowing actions which may challenge the misuse of private information.

It is very early days - last Friday. There will be much academic discussion of its extent.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12267
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby b1969 » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:33 pm

Yes. I Ididn't mean to suggest that Vidal-Hall wasn't important, just that its facts are not directly relevant to a discussion about state surveillance.

The tort of misuse of private information has arguably been around for some time (see Lord Nicholls' dicta in the 2004 Campbell v MGN case) but there is no doubt at all after this case. Query though whether (outside a case where jurisdiction is at issue, like here) whether the difference between tortious misuse of private information and equitable breach of confidence will have any practical significance.

More important, in my view, is the fact that the Court of Appeal found that s13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which says that compensation for distress is not available in the absence of pecuniary damage) is incompatible with European law. This opens the door to claims for pure distress, and could be a game-changer. I blogged: data protection ambulance chasing?
b1969
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby dls » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:43 pm

Your suggestion that there is no doubt about it is a bit premature.

What the google judgment identifies is that what started out as the law of confidence has become a very variegated beast. Some elements - such as this - are mere dycotyledons - the first sproutings of something which may subsequently bear little resemblance to the very first leaves.

Also, encryption software has been characterised as dual use armaments by the UK since the eighties at the latest. From memory it was derived from international treaty.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12267
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest