Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

High Court (E&W) Establishes tort of "misuse of private information".

Options
  • 17-01-2014 10:41am
    #1
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭


    The full judgment is here: http://goo.gl/N04gCp (I couldn't resist using google to shorten the URL).

    The facts of the case are extraordinarily uninteresting and it's utter drudgery to read it in full but it is useful.

    The claim relates to the use of private (personal) information by Google that it uses for DoubleClick and AdSense. One of the primary bones of contention, it seems to me, is that Google used a workaround to negate the default privacy settings that Apple rolled out in Safari v5.1 (I think). In essence, there were in-built exceptions to the general blocking of third-party cookies when browsing and one of these exceptions was exploited to force 3rd party cookies through. All of this is done unbeknownst to the user, who may think their private informations is only being provided to the sites they intentionally visit (if even).

    It has interesting implications for Google, who obviously rely heavily on this sort of activity to generate revenue.

    This may be appealed for the above reason. However, depending on the grounds for appeal, the tort may remain a good cause of action. Certainly, the above judgment seems to leave beyond doubt the existence of this tort.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Funny how this was already established in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22.


  • Options
    #3
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Tom Young wrote: »
    Funny how this was already established in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22.
    Does that case affirm the existence of the tort? It looks to me, without having read each of the 26,000 words, that the only Lord to state its existence was dissenting and at least one of the majority of the House stated that it was impossible for a tort to develop under the auspices of privacy and that any remedy must be rooted in equity.

    It's probably just semantics but that was my (admittedly very quick) reading.


  • Options
    #4
    Arsenal1986
    Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭Arsenal1986


    It does seem from a reading of the case at hand that it wasn't accepted that the Tort was established English law after Campbell - the judge in the case at hand does cite a number of decions from 2008 onwards that acknowledge such a tort (Secretary of State for the Home Office v British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (2008), Inerman v Tchenguiz (2011) and Walsh v Shanahan (2013)).

    Interesting to see how Irish Courts will react to such a tort.


Advertisement