green_amber: (Default)
Will be at the Tun tomorrow - who goes these days? and from when?

Wondering (in great haste) what anyone thinks of the suggestion to "name and shame" absent parents (ie fathers) who don't pay up on Child Support, on special websites.

The sanction seems weird - is completely disconnected from the crime. WE don't punish pickpockets by throwing custard pies at them - or indeed punish random acts of fraud by removal of passports (another threatened sanction under CSA.)

Isn't it intersting that when it saves the government money (as opposed to merely protects society), any old punishment will do? And does anyone think a man who is shitty enough not to pay for his kids will give a damn if his name is on a website?

Also what next - official websites for pedophile names? is this just a softening up for Megan's law??

Hmmm

May. 2nd, 2007 11:16 am
green_amber: (academic)
OK v Hello! has been decided in the < a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070502/obg-3.htm"> House of Lords (thanks to [livejournal.com profile] loveandgarbage for the tip-off. THis is the biggest case on privacy/misuse of confidential information in the history of English law. This is NOT, it should be stressed, about whether Michael Douglas and C Zeta-Jones had their privacy invaded at their wedding (that one's been and gone in a shower of legal fees); it is about whether Hello! stole confidential information from OK, the information not being "about" OK, but about the aforesaid starlets. And, according to the HL, yes, they did.

I haven't read it yet but I am heartened by one para that already caught my eye:

"118. It is first necessary to avoid being distracted by the concepts of privacy and personal information. In recent years, English law has adapted the action for breach of confidence to provide a remedy for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information: see Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457. This development has been mediated by the analogy of the right to privacy conferred by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and has required a balancing of that right against the right to freedom of expression conferred by article 10. But this appeal is not concerned with the protection of privacy. Whatever may have been the position of the Douglases, who, as I mentioned, recovered damages for an invasion of their privacy, OK!'s claim is to protect commercially confidential information and nothing more. So your Lordships need not be concerned with Convention rights. OK! has no claim to privacy under article 8 nor can it make a claim which is parasitic upon the Douglases' right to privacy. The fact that the information happens to have been about the personal life of the Douglases is irrelevant. It could have been information about anything that a newspaper was willing to pay for. What matters is that the Douglases, by the way they arranged their wedding, were in a position to impose an obligation of confidence. They were in control of the information."

So we have not recognised , it appears, that X can sell their private life to Y, and Y can use privacy remedies to defend it. This is a good thing. On the other hand, we have it seems created anew form of intellectual property which can be defended against infringement by all comers. Celebrities and their lawyers and the crappy celebrity culture will all be very happy; and that can only be bad.
green_amber: (Default)
Quote via Ray Corrigan of OU at http://b2fxxx.blogspot.com/2006/12/judges-perplexed.html:

"So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite Statutory Instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair to hold up their hands and say: "the Holly Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find". But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception."


I have written 4000 words critiquing DRM PhD. gah!
green_amber: (Default)

Manadatory Firewalls for all computers supplied by ISPs, to stop worms, spam and DDOS.

What do people think of this proposal? To me it seems pretty sensible.

green_amber: (law)
Filipino 'dwarf' judge loses case
A Philippines judge who said he consulted imaginary mystic dwarves has failed to convince the Supreme Court to allow him to keep his job.

Florentino Floro was appealing against a three-year inquiry which led to his removal due to incompetence and bias.

He told investigators three mystic dwarves - Armand, Luis and Angel - had helped him to carry out healing sessions during breaks in his chambers.

The court said psychic phenomena had no place in the judiciary.

The bench backed a medical finding that the judge was suffering from psychosis.

Flickr

Jan. 30th, 2006 01:04 pm
green_amber: (Default)
Extract from Real Blawg as no one ever comments there and I'd actually really like some help/comments on this one:

Finally, deep into the further reaches of conspiracy theories re privacy and web-bugging we have this interesting comment from the resposnses to the IP article above.

"I don’t have any ads on the site, I do have embedded Flickr pictures. So, here’s a question - is Flickr just a cover for a huge web bug operation used to track visits to sites that have embedded Flickr pictures, or is that being overly paranoid? "

Flickr is a site where users can post photos they've taken and embed them in their web pages - they can then be viewed, uploaded etc by the public (or not as you choose).

In theory it seems plausible that every Flickr image could inded be a web beacon, meaning Flickr could correlate sign up IDs with IP addresses and web sites, as well as patterns of known associates (people who look at your pictures tend to be people who know you).

Anyone like to comment? I must go have a look at the Flickr privacy policy :-)

Profile

green_amber: (Default)
green_amber

May 2009

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 02:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios