In message <[log in to unmask]>, at
13:27:30 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Phil Bradshaw <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Important for all data controllers to consider the impact of Vidal Hall
>v Google in which Court of Appeal has effectively repealed the s13 DPA
>prohibition on claiming damages for pure distress after a DP breach.
>See discussion at www.panopticonblog.com
Does this affect action people might take under 'right to be forgotten'
rules? I note that there has to be a "contravention" by the Data
Controller, and in what circumstances is a refusal to remove some
content a contravention?
I could see that not having a process in place to adjudicate requests
(but rather, simply turn them all down) might be a contravention.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|