On 26 February 2010 the New York Times had a dramatic headline : ” When American and European Ideas of Privacy collide.” The article, by the respected collumnist Adam Liptak, arose out of the ruling from an Italian Court that Google executives had violated Italian privacy law by allowing a user to post a video showing an autistic boy being bullied. The article states that the ruling calls attention to the “profound European commitment to privacy, one that threatens\ the American conception of free expression and could restrict the flow of information on the Internet to everyone.2 The ruling balanced ECHR Article 8 rights against free speech and ruled in favour of the former. Given the biorderless quality of the Internet, that balance has the potential to affect Nations that prefer to “tilt towards the values” protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution (whose “distant cousin” is Article 10 of the ECHR), and makes Europe the “effective sovereign of global privacy law”. The word “privacy” does not appear in the US Constitution. The Italian prosecution would have been “unimaginable” in the US. The article concludes : “Britain is only slowly moving towards the Continental model.”
Tags
Click 'Tags' to show or hide the tag cloud.Add new tag article 6 article 8 CCTV confidentiality database data protection data sharing DNA EIR employment monitoring employment vetting environmental information First-tier tribunal FOIA High Court ICO powers Information Tribunal internet judicial review legal professional privilege local authority national security personal data privacy Procedure public authorities public interest RIPA section 14 FOIA section 23 FOIA section 24 FOIA section 27 FOIA section 30 FOIA section 32 FOIA section 35 FOIA section 36 FOIA section 40 FOIA section 42 FOIA section 43 FOIA section 44 FOIA social networking surveillance vexatious requests whether information held-
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.Links
- 11KBW Resources
- Act Now Training
- Amberhawk
- Article 29 Working Party
- Australian Privacy Commissioner
- Centre for Freedom of Information
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- FOI Man
- FOI News
- freedominfo.org
- Ibrahim Hassan
- Information Commissioner’s Office
- Information Law Practice
- Information rights and wrongs
- Information Tribunal
- InfoSec
- Ministry of Justice
- National Association of Data Protection Officers
- New Zealand Privacy Commissioner
- Northumbria University Information Rights LLM
- Open Secrets blog
- Out-Law website
- Scottish Information Commissioner
- Surveillance and Society
- UCL Constitution Unit
- UK Freedom of Information Blog
- Virtual Shadows
- Your Right to Know Blog
Archives
- May 2012 (4)
- April 2012 (11)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (15)
- January 2012 (5)
- December 2011 (5)
- November 2011 (13)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (6)
- August 2011 (3)
- July 2011 (8)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (6)
- March 2011 (13)
- February 2011 (10)
- January 2011 (13)
- December 2010 (13)
- November 2010 (12)
- October 2010 (7)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (5)
- July 2010 (10)
- June 2010 (11)
- May 2010 (7)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (13)
- February 2010 (4)
- January 2010 (12)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (15)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (10)
“When American and European Ideas of Privacy collide.”
March 1st, 2010Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2009
Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2009