Information Law Conference 2020

December 9th, 2019 by sophiep

Our 2020 Information Law Conference brings together 11KBW’s market-leading specialists to provide updates on the law and practicalities relating to data protection, privacy and freedom of information.

Topics covered include;

  • data breaches and the dynamics of civil litigation – group litigation and representative actions
  • data breaches: what’s it worth? damages and penalties
  • general privacy update: scope of the controller concept, subject access, privacy shield, etc
  • the future of e-privacy and e-commerce
  • privacy and the media: recent developments and trends
  • FOIA/EIR update
  • Privacy laws in a post-Brexit world?

What last year’s delegates said about the conference:
“A really informative, engaging day.  The range of topics was excellent, as were the speakers.”
“Always excellent to hear speakers who know exactly what they are talking about”
“Excellent, best conference covering information law”

Seminar details

Venue: Kelvin Theatre, IET, 2 Savoy Pl, London WC2R 0BL

Date: 4 March 2020

Registration will be from 9am with the conference starting at 9.30am.

Cost per delegate:
Cost: £175 + VAT (20%) = £210.00
EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT – 10% off if you book before 17 February 2020

How to Book?

To book your place, please email RSVP@11kbw.com along with your name, firm and email address. We will then email back with booking confirmation.

Cancellations
A refund can be made up to 14 days before the conference. A substitute delegate will be accepted any time before the conference.
Additional Requirements
If you have any additional requirements e.g. wheelchair access, large print documentation or an induction loop, or if you have any particular dietary requirements please let us know.
Important Note
11KBW reserve the right at any time and without prior notice to change the venue, speakers or programme. We also reserve the right in our absolute discretion and without further liability to cancel the conference, in which event full refunds will be made
Privacy Notice– click here.

 

Some you might have missed

December 5th, 2019 by Peter Lockley

By which we mean: some that we did miss blogging about. With apologies and better late than nevers, here’s a round-up of three recent(ish) cases worthy of note. In R (Open Rights Group) v SSHD digital campaigners Open Rights Group and The3million (campaigning on behalf of so many EU Citizens living in the UK) challenged the immigration exemption – one of the few new features in the DPA 2018 that strengthens the controller’s hand – as incompatible with fundamental charter rights to privacy and protection of personal data. They also contended that it was too broad, vague and lacking in the safeguards required by the parent Article 23 GDPR (which enables Member States to enact domestic exemptions). Read more »

 

When “maybe” isn’t good enough: orders for production of journalistic material

October 29th, 2019 by Christopher Parkin

The efforts of the Beeb in the Divisional Court have clarified the conditions to be satisfied before a Court can require journalistic material be produced in criminal cases.

Read more »

 

When to assess the public interest in a FOIA request? Four years ago says Upper Tribunal in Maurizi

October 23rd, 2019 by Christopher Parkin

Heading off the FOIA equivalent of a zombie apocalpyse, the Upper Tribunal has driven a stake through the heart of the contention (long presumed dead) that the public interest in a FOIA request is to be assessed at a time other than when the public authority first refused the request.

Read more »

 

Mean Ms Mustard (Or: covert recordings as admissible evidence)

October 15th, 2019 by Robin Hopkins

Ms Mustard was injured in a road traffic accident, for which she claims compensation. She was examined by medical experts appointed by the insurer. She covertly recorded two of those consultations deliberately, and a third accidentally. She wants to deploy those recordings as evidence in support of her claim. The insurer objected, arguing that the recordings constituted unlawful processing contrary to the GDPR and the DPA 2018. Read more »

 

(Thumb)nail in the coffin for the prohibition on monitoring?

October 3rd, 2019 by Julian Blake

Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) has long been a useful weapon in the armoury of social media platforms and search engines by prohibiting a “general monitoring obligation”. This, they argue, means that they can only be required to remove specific unlawful content that is identified by the complainant or court, but no more. The problem with this is that it is very easy for the unlawful content to be spread far and wide and the complainant is required to play whac-a-mole, identifying every repetition and variation of that content.

In today’s judgment in Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (Case C-18/18), the CJEU has given important guidance in relation to the removal of content which contains identical wording to the original unlawful content or which has “equivalent” content.

Read more »