Comments on: Google and Privacy: the facts speak for themselves http://www.cearta.ie/2008/09/google-and-privacy-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/ the Irish for rights Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:43:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: cearta.ie » Google, Amazon, Citron http://www.cearta.ie/2008/09/google-and-privacy-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-8061 cearta.ie » Google, Amazon, Citron Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:11:47 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=604#comment-8061 [...] worry that private actors such as Google and Amazon should retain so much personal data as to raise significant privacy concerns. More recently, the range of worry has broadened, with the realisation that such [...] [...] worry that private actors such as Google and Amazon should retain so much personal data as to raise significant privacy concerns. More recently, the range of worry has broadened, with the realisation that such [...]

]]> By: Ronan http://www.cearta.ie/2008/09/google-and-privacy-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-4087 Ronan Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:48:48 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=604#comment-4087 Eoin, Some further issues with the Data Retention Directive (Ireland application): 1. The Draft S.I. contains references to civil litigation, this is wholly incorrect vis the intention of the Directive (Think Sabam v Tiscali SpA. "Scarlett" and Music Rights Holders v eircom); 2. The S.I. could redefine 'serious crime' in Ireland which as you will be aware is defined under the Bail Act 1997, as crimes with a sentence toll of five years in duration or more; 3. Wrangles over what constitutes 'undue delay' in furnishing data; 4. Clashes between the Article 29 WG and the intention of the Data Retention Directive; 5. The litigation at the ECJ undertaken by Ireland and Slovenia vis the Pillar placement of the Council vote on the directive (McDowell is actually a liberal in re. Data Privacy); 6. Cost recovery is not being allowed in Ireland, it is in the UK and other countries. Making Law enforcement agencies work to a budget means that 'fishing expeditions' will not occur; 7. Germany are Judicially Reviewing the DRED at the moment, will be most interesting. Some of the main angles are mentioned above e.g., Civil Litigation and Serious Crime; and 8. The EU expert group on the DRED are not finished their deliberations as yet. Back in 2002 when this was first discussed and coincidentally Minister Dermot Ahern was in-situ in Department of Communications, now Justice we all worked to lobby on this in Internet and Telecoms in Ireland. The snafu continues. The powers that be failed to get a time extension due to the ECJ litigation and now we face implementation with out a Regulatory Impact Assessment - RIA, in advance of it being signed into law. I wonder does the Irish Constitutional shield under Art 29 really still apply or do we have to contend with more right infringing legislation. Anyone know where the DRI case is at? Fun times. Ronan Eoin,

Some further issues with the Data Retention Directive (Ireland application):

1. The Draft S.I. contains references to civil litigation, this is wholly incorrect vis the intention of the Directive (Think Sabam v Tiscali SpA. “Scarlett” and Music Rights Holders v eircom);

2. The S.I. could redefine ’serious crime’ in Ireland which as you will be aware is defined under the Bail Act 1997, as crimes with a sentence toll of five years in duration or more;

3. Wrangles over what constitutes ‘undue delay’ in furnishing data;

4. Clashes between the Article 29 WG and the intention of the Data Retention Directive;

5. The litigation at the ECJ undertaken by Ireland and Slovenia vis the Pillar placement of the Council vote on the directive (McDowell is actually a liberal in re. Data Privacy);

6. Cost recovery is not being allowed in Ireland, it is in the UK and other countries. Making Law enforcement agencies work to a budget means that ‘fishing expeditions’ will not occur;

7. Germany are Judicially Reviewing the DRED at the moment, will be most interesting. Some of the main angles are mentioned above e.g., Civil Litigation and Serious Crime; and

8. The EU expert group on the DRED are not finished their deliberations as yet.

Back in 2002 when this was first discussed and coincidentally Minister Dermot Ahern was in-situ in Department of Communications, now Justice we all worked to lobby on this in Internet and Telecoms in Ireland. The snafu continues.

The powers that be failed to get a time extension due to the ECJ litigation and now we face implementation with out a Regulatory Impact Assessment – RIA, in advance of it being signed into law.

I wonder does the Irish Constitutional shield under Art 29 really still apply or do we have to contend with more right infringing legislation.

Anyone know where the DRI case is at?

Fun times.

Ronan

]]>