The Freedom of Information Act is a statute of great constitutional significance. The Act heralded a right to publicly held information which government had attempted to keep private. FOIA laws have their origins in the pre-digital age and any discussion of information rights must take on board the contemporary reality of the global digitization of communications via social media networks and the enhanced capabilities of state intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance over electronic communications. The General Data Protection Regulation seeks to give greater security to personal data. However, private information is harvested by private tech companies which they have obtained often ‘voluntarily’ and used by intermediaries to influence public events, public power and elections—as illustrated by recent scandals involving the practice of ‘data farming’ by social media networks and the sale of personal data to political campaign consultants seeking to pinpoint electors and thereby affect the outcomes of national elections and referenda. Government surveillance is age-old, but the emergence of digital power has enabled public authority to invade our private lives far more intrusively and effectively. The most recent example is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. All this poses substantial challenges for the public regulation of information access in a growing confusion of public and private in the constitution. Courts, meanwhile, have to balance demands for privacy protection, open justice and secrecy.
Chapter
For litigation lawyers, interim applications will be much more numerous than full trials. There may be several interim hearings for each case before trial, and many cases will have some interim hearings to deal with specific issues and then proceed to settle without trial. A key strand of effective litigation is to make strategic and cost-effective use of interim applications. It is important to be familiar with what orders can be sought, what is needed to make a successful application, and what tests the courts will apply. This chapter discusses the general procedure for applications; making applications before a case starts; ways of cutting short an action; tactical considerations when involving people as parties and witnesses; gaining access to information held by the opposing side and non-parties; and money strategies.
Chapter
Stuart Bell, Donald McGillivray, Ole W. Pedersen, Emma Lees, and Elen Stokes
This chapter deals with public participation in environmental law and policy. Over recent years, there have been significant moves towards increasing both the quantity and quality of public participation in many different areas of environmental decision-making. The exact nature of public participation can take many forms, but the chapter concentrates on access to information on the environment and public participation in environmental decision-making. It also looks at some of the reasons for giving greater access to environmental information; the types of environmental information that are available; the use of environmental information as a regulatory instrument; international and European initiatives; and past, present, and future approaches to access to environmental information in the UK.
Chapter
This chapter examines the rights of data subjects under GDPR and the role of the state in supervising data controllers. It examines data subject rights, including the subject access right and the right to correct and manage personal data. It deals with the development of the so-called Right to be Forgotten and the Mario Costeja González case. It examines the current supervisory regime, including the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the enforcement rights of data subjects. Key cases, including Durant v The Financial Services Authority, Edem v IC & Financial Services Authority, Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing, and Ittihadieh v 5–11 Cheyne Gardens are discussed, and the chapter concludes by examining the enhanced enforcement rights awarded to the Information Commissioner’s Office by the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018.
Chapter
Justine Pila and Paul L.C. Torremans
This chapter discusses database protection and database right under European Parliament and Council Directive on the protection of databases [1996] OJ L 77/20.1, better known as the Database Directive. Long before the advent of digital technology various forms of databases were around in analogue format, such as telephone directories. Digital technology opened up opportunities of scale in this area and made data easy to search. But at the same time it impeded the mere consultation or reading of the data, that are now hidden in a digital format. The real value of a database lies in the comprehensive nature of the information it contains, rather than in the originality of the information itself. Thus, granting an exclusive right in a collection of data or information, without any requirement of originality in relation to the data or information, not only risks interfering with the right of access to information, but also risks interfering with the freedom of competition, since the only workable access to information and data that are themselves in the public domain and freely available will now pass via the rights holder and its database. The database right has the difficult task of striking the right balance between the various interests involved, and the Directive has been accused of putting in place the least balanced and most anti-competitive exclusive right in the EU.
Chapter
This chapter examines the rights of data subjects under GDPR (and UK GDPR) and the role of the state in supervising data controllers. It examines data subject rights including the subject access right and the right to correct and manage personal data. It deals with the development of the so-called right to be forgotten in the Mario Costeja González case and its application in cases such as NT1 & NT2 v Google. It examines the current supervisory regime including the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the enforcement rights of data subjects. Key cases, including Durant v The Financial Services Authority, Edem v IC & Financial Services Authority, Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing, and Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens are discussed, and the chapter concludes by examining the enhanced enforcement rights awarded to the Information Commisioner’s Office by the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018.
