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

  • From: Shaun O'Connor <capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:26:50 +0100

exactly, justice,( if such a thing truly exists) appears to be measured
in pounds shillings(remember them?) and pence. ergo the fatter your
wallet , the better chance of getting your own bespoke brand of justice.
information is the new currency methinks.



On 03/04/2015 18:15, Douglas Rankine wrote:

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.



[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

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.


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

See url:

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/


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





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


Other related posts: