That is a question posed by Kris Nelson on his blog, in propria persona. As usual, the answer is that “it depends”. I’ve already had a look at the issue from the perspective of potential criminal or civil liability if a user’s wifi is shared by a third party; and Daithí has taken the discussion several steps further. Now, Kris adds an additional consideration, directing the analysis to the terms of any contract between the ISP and the customer: …
As part of Amnesty International‘s and the Observer newspaper’s Irrepressible campaign against internet repression, there will be a webcast on Wednesday 6 June 2007 at 18.30 (UK / 19.30 Europe / 13.30 EST / 10.30 PST) of a major debate on the struggle for freedom of expression in cyberspace. As their blurb puts it:
…Amnesty and The Observer newspaper will use the internet to link activists from around the world to discuss the struggle against internet repression and to celebrate the irrepressible desire of people towards freedom of expression. The meeting will include participation from internet gurus, cyber dissidents as well as net activists, writers and journalists. Everyone will be able to participate to the debate online through a webcast on the day.
It seems to be Annual Reports season. TJ has been plugging away at the Annual Report of the Data Protection Commissioner (already mentioned on this blog); Daithí was first with the news about the Annual Report (pdf) of the Information Commissioner (there’s a report in today’s Irish Times (sub req’d)), while her Federal Canadian counterpart (hat tip Slaw) has also just issued a similar annual report (all at a time when their UK counterpart feels (speech pdf | Guardian report) increasingly under threat from government (hat tip MediaPal@LSE)). Leaving these reports to TJ and Daithí, I’d like to focus on the piece by Michael Dwyer in today’s Irish Times, headlined “Film censor report advocates less restriction, more classification”, concerning the Annual Report (press release (pdf) | Report (pdf)) of the Irish Film Censor’s Office (IFCO). One interesting statistic from the report concerns the numbers of cinema films classified by the office: of 265 features, the biggest category was 15A (95 films, 35% of the total), and only 22 were classified 18 (see this chart from page 11 of the Report):
By way of contrast, a chart on page 15 shows that 9926 videos were classified in 2006.…
The Roman poet Juvenal asked Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchers?). In a similar vein, one of Elvis Costello‘s more acidic songs of loss is ‘Watching the Detectives’ (lyrics | lyrics with images | YouTube). If Google is the search engine which does (most of) our detecting for us, one of the animating questions of the moment is who is watching the Google detective on our behalf? One answer is provided by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC (also here) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
This is the EU Data Protection Directive, and it is a major plank in the data protection strand of the EU’s information society policy. …
Via MediaLawProf Blog and Concurring Opinions, I learn of a fascinating symposium (html | pdf) in First Impressions, an online companion to the Michigan Law Review, on Televising the US Supreme Court. The articles wax and wane on the issue. …
The Business This Week section of today’s Irish Times carries an advertisment (on page 18), under the heading used as the title to thise post, seeking applications for the position of Press Ombudsman. The advertisment is available online here (from Grant Thornton‘s recruitment arm).
The Press Ombudsman is a crucial part of the press industry’s Press Council package, and will be critical not only to the efficient working of the complaints system but also as a consequence to the public legitimacy of the entire project. According to the Press Council website [update (3 January 2008): the website has been redesigned and this link is no longer active]:
…The Press Ombudsman
The Press Ombudsman will be appointed by the Press Council, is and will be the public face of Irish press regulation; s/he is the person who will receive complaints from members of the public, consider whether they are valid, and then seek to resolve them to the satisfaction of everyone involved. The Press Ombudsman will deal with the majority of complaints by members of the public, however s/he will also has the option of referring difficult cases (or cases where those involved are dissatisfied with the decision) to the Press Council of Ireland.
The headline in today’s Sunday Independent says it all: Shock as ad on autistic children banned. Niamh Horan reports:
A new advertisement highlighting the urgent needs of autistic children in Ireland has been banned from radio stations on the grounds that it is too political.
Now Irish Autism Action [IAA], which champions the rights of Irish children suffering from autism, has said they are surprised that the ad was banned by both the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) and the national State broadcaster, RTÉ.
We have been here before. …
On the day I learn (hat tip Media Law Prof Blog) that US not-for-profit NGO Freedom House has released its annual global Freedom of the Press Survey for 2007 (Ireland fares reasonably well – equal thirteenth in Europe, equal sixteenth worldwide – but we could do better), I also learn (hat tip madisonian.net) that Verizon have made an extraordinarily tendentious free speech argument in favour of disclosing customer records to the US security services. …
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress