[cryptome] Re: Google v Vidar Hall: UK Law

  • From: "Douglas Rankine" <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:15:23 +0100

Hi Shaun,

Interesting how the great progressive peoples Goggle fights legally every
inch of the way, from lack of jurisdiction to outside the geographical area,
in order to limit its liability and exploit and use every teeny weenie bit
of information it can collect.

They will probably appeal first...and if they lose it, then they will
introduce measures to protect themselves, though not necessarily the privacy
of their users...in those countries which come under English Law
jurisdiction.



It is however, a little advance in UK citizens rights. The real problem
with all these things is that an individual has to take them to court to
enforce it. Until such time as the state makes it free to appeal to a
tribunal, or makes stealing private information a criminal offence then
there is little chance of folks taking it up...and even less chance of them
winning. Have you ever noticed how time after time, when people go on
holidays and get a rum deal from the aircraft company or the hotelier, they
have to take them to court to get justice, even though the law is on their
side. Writing letters, gets ignored, only when the bailiffs or the Sheriffs
men come in with a court order do they comply.



Consumer rights are crap, unless they are freely enforceable and companies
and their directors and managers are threatened with criminal prosecution if
they don't obey the law. Privacy is a civil matter and very rarely a
criminal matter. Unlike copyright infringement, consumer movements can
only vote with their feet, "not for profits" are mostly without funding;
whilst the likes of Hollywood media moguls, have gazillions of dosh to lobby
governments and get their law enforcement agencies to take children to
court, or get the state to enforce what is essentially a civil, contractual
matter. Capitalism is the most efficient system which has been devised by
human beings so far. It is just a question of tinkering a little with the
human bits to make it work for the benefit of the mass of the people,
instead of enriching the few... J.

ATB

Dougie.



From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Shaun O'Connor
Sent: 03 April 2015 16:41
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Google v Vidar Hall: UK Law




interesting,
I a sure google,. et al will now be scrambling to rework their privacy
clauses to try and exempt themselves retrospectively from liability.

nice find Doug.

ATB
Shaun.

On 03/04/2015 15:30, Douglas Rankine wrote:

See url:
http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Vidal-Hall-v-Google.pdf

For case details.

Google collecting private information on you without your permission is a
tort and financial compensation can be claimed in lieu of damages. How much
is yet to be determined. Up till now, you were naked...private information
collected about you was considered worthless, and even if it was valuable,
someone else taking it and using it wasn't considered to be a financial
loss, so you couldn't claim damages....now you have a pair of very expensive
leaky pants... J.

See url: http://www.5rb.com/case/vidal-hall-ors-v-google-inc/

Quote:<<<<

There are two main points of interest in the decision. The first is that it
confirms that misuse of private information is a tort. Although this had
been stated in a number of earlier judgments, which were cited here, there
was a lingering doubt about the status of the cause of action. The fact that
the issue was fully argued here with reference to all of the relevant
authorities, and the expertise of the judge in this field, do make this a
significant statement of the law.

The second is that the judge indicated in a preliminary view that damages
for a breach of the DPA could include non pecuniary damage. The impact of
the DPA in privacy law has to date been limited by the requirement that
damage for distress could only be recovered if pecuniary damage had been
suffered. This development has the potential to make claims under the DPA
far more common in the field of privacy law.

Note: The Upper Tribunal was invited, but declined to follow Tugendhat J's
prelimunary view on the meaning of damage under the DPA when considering
another provision of the Act. See here for further details.
<http://www.5rb.com/news/damage-mean-dpa/> >>>end of quote

ATB

Dougie.





--
PRIVACY IS A BASIC RIGHT - NOT A CONCESSION
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/when-time-comes-we-need-be-ready-fight
-tpps-secret-anti-user-agenda

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9442 - Release Date: 04/03/15

Other related posts: