cearta.ie – Page 8 – the Irish for rights

Garda use of facial recognition technologies unnecessary and disproportionate. It may have significant chilling effects, altering how people use public and online spaces

2 June, 20222 June, 2022

I am a signatory to a letter in today’s Irish Times, under the above heading. Here is a lightly-linked version, via the UCD Centre for Digital Policy (and also https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/opinion-helen-mcentee-must-place-a-full-moratorium-on-policing-facial-recognition-technologies):

Open Letter to the Irish Times: Experts’ Red Line on Policing Facial Recognition Technologies

Sir. – The Minister for Justice plans to expand the gardaí’s surveillance powers with policing facial recognition technologies (FRT). While some believe that using FRT may help make us safer, the undersigned experts from 7 universities and 13 NGOs in Ireland know the risks are too significant.

Policing FRT is used as a form of mass surveillance that will enable the identification and tracking of individuals without warranted suspicion. It has the ability to scan large amounts of publicly captured visual data so it can draw powerful inferences about people, the vast majority of whom would be of no interest whatsoever to the gardaí. While public safety and national security can sometimes supersede privacy rights, the intrusions of policing FRT surveillance are wholly unnecessary and disproportionate. There is a danger that the use of FRT will have significant chilling effects, altering how people use public and online spaces.

Even though this technology is available for policing, it does not mean we should use or trust it.

…

Mistaken payments and criminal liability – a cautionary tale from South Africa

4 April, 202221 July, 2024

| 1 Comment

| Mistaken payments, Restitution, Restitution

I have warned many times on this blog (especially here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here – with examples from Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) that the recipient of a mistaken payment not only has a duty to make restitution of that unjust enrichment but also faces potential criminal liability for theft if the payment is kept (and, worse, spent) rather than returned. A recent cause célèbre from South Africa provides another cautionary tale:

Sibongile Mani sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for theft of NSFAS funds

Walter Sisulu University (WSU) student Sibongile Mani [left] has been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for theft relating to R14 million [€870,000] accidentally credited to her account by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in 2017.

East London Regional Court Magistrate Twanette Olivier found Mani guilty of stealing R818,000 [€51,000] of the funds.

She was only entitled to a R1,400 [€87] food allowance and was accused of failing to report when R14 million [€870,000] was credited to her account erroneously. She instead embarked on a spending spree. …

A little more background:

Key events that led up to the sentencing and appeal of NSFAS ‘millionaire’ Sibongile Mani

…
June 2017
A technical glitch led to funding administrative company Intellimali erroneously transferring R14m into Mani’s account.

…

Frances Haugen, Facebook whistle-blower, in conversation with Jess Kelly, tech correspondent with Newstalk fm, in the Long Room Hub, Trinity College Dublin, at 5pm on Monday 21 March 2022

15 March, 202217 March, 2022

| No Comments

| Conferences, Lectures, Papers and Workshops

Frances Haugen, Facebook whistle-blower, will be in conversation with Jess Kelly, tech correspondent with Newstalk fm, on Monday, 21 March 2022, 5–6pm, in the Neill Lecture Theatre, Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute, Trinity College Dublin (map here).

About the Conversation

Frances Haugen is a data engineer, and formerly a product manager with Facebook. In 2021, she disclosed tens of thousands of Facebook’s internal documents to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and these documents formed the basis of the Wall Street Journal‘s Facebook Files investigation. In October 2021, she told the US Congress that Meta’s “leadership know how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people”. She has testified to the US Congress, the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, and the Oireachtas, that government regulation of Meta is increasingly necessary.

In her conversation with Jess Kelly, tech correspondent with Newstalk fm, Frances will discuss what changes Meta can make, and what regulations legislators can introduce, to make platforms safer.

PLEASE BOOK HERE. Numbers are limited, so registration is essential.…

Convenience as consideration? Payment for good consideration as a defence to a claim to restitution for unjust enrichment

22 February, 202213 September, 2022

| No Comments

| Restitution, Restitution

In Barclays Bank Limited v Simms [1980] QB 679, 695, Goff J held that a claim for restitution on the grounds of mistake would fail, inter alia, if

the payment is made for good consideration, in particular if the money is paid to discharge and does discharge a debt owed to the payee (or a principal on whose behalf he is authorised to receive the payment) by the payer or by a third party by whom he is authorised to discharge the debt … [emphasis added]

We have already seen an interesting US case of the particular example of the three party case [update: the appeal is noted here]. Now comes news of an interesting US case of the italicised general example of payment made for good consideration.

In Pincus v American Traffic Solutions, Inc, Pincus was photographed going through a red light (similar to the one in the photo, right), and he paid a penalty to American Traffic Solutions, Inc (ATS), made up of the statutory penalty and an additional fee for the convenience of paying online rather than by mail. He brought a putative class action (pdf) against ATS in Federal Court, alleging that several Florida statutes barred ATS from charging the convenience fee and that ATS was unjustly enriched by retaining it.…

Defamation reform will go to Cabinet tomorrow – and it will include anti-SLAPP provisions! — Updated: it’s been postponed by a week

21 February, 202223 February, 2023

| 2 Comments

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation, Defamation, Libel tourism

By way of update to my previous post wondering whether we will see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month, it seems increasingly likely that the answer is: yes, we will, and may even see it tomorrow. Both Mark Tighe in yesterday’s Sunday Times (sub req’d), and Jennifer Bray in today’s Irish Times, report that Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee (pictured right) will bring a package of proposals for reform of Ireland’s defamation laws to Cabinet tomorrow. Shane Phelan has a similar report in the Sunday Independent; and Elaine Loughlin has a similar report in the Irish Examiner.

This week’s reports are similar to those of Hugh O’Connell in the Sunday Independent a week ago as noted in my previous post, with one very important addition. The proposed reforms follow on from a statutory review of the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here) that was probably completed in 2020 but has yet to be published; and, in my post on O’Connell’s report, I commented that if the review had recommended provisions to control strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), I would have expected O’Connell to have said so.…

Will we see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month?

14 February, 202222 February, 2022

| 1 Comment

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation, Defamation

A report by Hugh O’Connell in yesterday’s Sunday Independent suggests that the answer to the question in the title of this post is: yes, we may very well see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month. He reports that the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, will bring to Cabinet the outcome of a statutory review (including a stakeholder symposium) of the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here) and a general scheme of the Heads of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2022 based on the review’s recommendations. This is exciting news, but I’m not going to get too carried away, because we have been here many times before. Last March, on this blog, I bemoaned the many false dawns in Irish defamation law reform. Then, in July, I posed the question “Who will come first, Godot, or an Irish Minister for Justice bearing defamation reform?”. So far, we’ve seen neither; but O’Connell’s report suggests we might just soon see the latter.

The Defamation Act 2009 had been signed by the President on 23 July 2009, and it came into force on 1 January 2010. Section 5 (also here) requires the Minister to commence a review of the operation of the Act “not later than 5 years after the passing of this Act”, and to complete that review within a year.…

Taking the Santa out of Santander for £130m; putting the Santa into Citibank for $500m; and Fraiser’s Dad’s road to perdition – restitution of mistaken payments, again; and the defence of bona fide purchase

24 January, 202229 July, 2024

| 1 Comment

| Mistaken payments, Restitution

Banks are more often cast in the role of Scrooge than Santa; and, even when they start out in the latter role, they end up in the former.

For example, where over-active ATMs played Santa and permitted withdrawals of amounts greater than available funds or credit, the bank quickly became Scrooge, insisting that all money withdrawn by customers in excess of their balances will have to be repaid. Unlike in monopoly, you cannot retain the proceeds of a bank error in your favour. It’s not a gift either from God or from the bank. As I have explained many times on this blog, this is a mistaken payment, and the recipient must return it, unless there is a defence. And, if it is not returned, it could constitute theft.

Just before Christmas, Santander bank found itself first as Santa and then as Scrooge:

Bank accidentally deposits $176 million into people’s accounts on Christmas Day

Thousands of people received a surprise gift on Christmas Day this year when European bank Santander accidentally deposited £130 million ($176 million) across 75,000 transactions.

The mistake happened when payments from 2,000 business accounts in the U.K. were processed twice, meaning some employees saw their wages double, while suppliers also got more than they were expecting.

…