Posted by Administration on Feb 2, 2012 in Data Protection Laws, England, Human Rights Act 1998, Laws, LBP Regulations, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, RIPA, RSS Syndicated Posts, Scotland, Telecommunications Regulations 1999, UK, United Kingdom, Wales
Can I Record My Phone Calls In The UK? I get this question asked of me all the time, and there is obviously a lot of confusion in relation to it. Most of the confusion comes from companies based in the UK who don’t want you recording their phone calls. (Probably for sinister reasons) Banks, Finance Companies and many others have ill trained staff that state you must have there permission to record. Some will end the call stating that you are breaking the law or they don’t want you recording. I am going to lay this out for you exactly how it is and the following information comes directly from (“Ofcom”) the regulator for the UK Communications industry. Ofcom information – A general overview of interception, recording and monitoring of communications The interception, recording and monitoring of telephone calls is governed by a number of different pieces of UK legislation. The requirements of all relevant legislation must be complied with. The main ones are: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”). http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (“LBP Regulations”). Data Protection Act 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999. http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992093.htm Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm It is not possible to provide comprehensive detail of that legislation here. Any person considering interception, recording or monitoring of telephone calls or e-mails is strongly advised to seek his/her own independent legal advice and should not seek to rely on the general information provided below. It should be borne in mind that criminal offences and civil actions may occur when the relevant legislation is not complied with. Accordingly, Ofcom or (“us”) accepts no liability for reliance by any person on the following information. Q. Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone? A. Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication – which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail – are made available to a third party, i.e. someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further For full information see the Legislation Website http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23 Q. Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me? A. No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording. Q. Can a business or other organisation record or monitor my phone calls or e-mail correspondence with them? A. Yes they can, but only in a limited set of circumstances relevant for that business which have been defined by the LBP Regulations. The main ones are: to provide evidence...
Read More »
Posted by Administration on Jan 18, 2012 in Censorship, Free Speech, Free Speech Reform, Freedom of Expression, Google, Laws, PIPA, SOPA, USA
We’ve been talking about the Golan case, and its possible impact on culture, for years. If you’re unfamiliar with it, it’s the third in a line of cases, starting with the Eldred case, to challenge aspects of copyright law as violating the First Amendment. The key point in the case was questioning whether or not the US could take works out of the public domain and put them under copyright. The US had argued it needed to do this under a trade agreement to make other countries respect our copyrights. Of course, for those who were making use of those public domain works, it sure seemed like a way to unfairly lock up works that belonged to the public. It was difficult to see how retroactively taking works out of the public domain could fit into the traditional contours of copyright law… but today, on the day of the big SOPA/PIPA protests… that’s exactly what happened (pdf). The ruling is ridiculously depressing. The Justices basically just keep repeating the mantra they first set forth in Eldred, that as long as Congress says it’s okay — and that the “fair use” and the “idea/expression” dichotomy remain — all is just dandy. They also claim that since the very first copyright law took works from the public domain and gave them copyright protection, clearly there’s nothing wrong with removing works from the public domain. This decision reinforces why the Eldred decision was a complete disaster, and just keeps getting worse. The Eldred ruling basically ignored the fact that copyright had changed entirely in a way that went against the First Amendment… by retroactively granting copyright extension. Now that ruling is being used to take works out of the public domain as well. First, as with Eldred (and the second case in the trilogy, the Kahle case), I believe that the Court is greatly mistaken in its analysis of copyright law. First it claims that there’s little fight between copyright and the First Amendment because the two things were put in place at about the same time. That’s a specious argument for a variety of reasons. First, the original copyright law was significantly limited in a way that it was unlikely to really come into conflict with the First Amendment. It was limited to just a few specific areas, and for a very short period of time. It’s only now that (1) copyright law has been totally flipped to make just about everything you create covered by copyright, (2) the law has been massively expanded in time and (3) changes in technology make us all create tons of “copyrighted” material all the time — things have changed an entirely. It’s hard to see how the Court can reasonably argue that the traditional contours of copyright law have not changed… but that’s exactly what it does. Stunningly, the majority decision here, written by...
Read More »
Posted by Administration on Jan 18, 2012 in Free Speech, Free Speech Reform, Freedom of Expression, Google, Laws, PIPA, SOPA, USA
More about SOPA and PIPA Members of Congress are trying to do the right thing by going after pirates and counterfeiters but SOPA and PIPA are the wrong way to do it. Sign the petition here 1. SOPA and PIPA would censor the Web The U.S. government could order the blocking of sites using methods similar to those employed by China. Among other things, search engines could be forced to delete entire websites from their search results. That’s why 41 human rights organizations and 110 prominent law professors have expressed grave concerns about the bills. 2. SOPA and PIPA would be job-killers because they would create a new era of uncertainty for American business Law-abiding U.S. internet companies would have to monitor everything users link to or upload or face the risk of time-consuming litigation. That’s why AOL, EBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo and Zynga wrote a letter to Congress saying these bills “pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.” It’s also why 55 of America’s most successful venture capitalists expressed concern that PIPA “would stifle investment in Internet services, throttle innovation, and hurt American competitiveness”. More than 204 entrepreneurs told Congress that PIPA and SOPA would “hurt economic growth and chill innovation”. 3. SOPA and PIPA wouldn’t stop piracy To make matters worse, SOPA and PIPA won’t even work. The censorship regulations written into these bills won’t shut down pirate sites. These sites will just change their addresses and continue their criminal activities, while law-abiding companies will suffer high penalties for breaches they can’t possibly control. There are effective ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that have made the Internet such an important driver of American economic growth and job creation. Congress should consider alternatives like the OPEN Act, which takes targeted and focused steps to cut off the money supply from foreign pirate sites without making US companies censor the Web. Information provided by © Google ™ (The Best Internet Search Engine in the...
Read More »
Posted by Administration on Dec 28, 2011 in England, Free Speech, Free Speech Reform, Libel Laws, Scotland, UK, USA, Wales
UK: Draft Defamation Bill Posted on April 5, 2011 by Adrianos Facchetti American defamation lawyers and others have criticized British Libel law for years; and for good reason. Among other things, English law requires the defendant to prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statement, whereas in the U.S., in most states, and in most circumstances, the plaintiff must prove falsity. Because of England’s pro-plaintiff laws, it has become a destination for plaintiffs looking to find the most favorable forum in which to file suit, AKA “Libel Tourism.” But now it looks like this is all about to change. The Draft Defamation Bill published by the Ministry of Justice last month, seems to be a step in the right direction. While I haven’t read the entire 132 page document just yet (just skimmed it), it is clear that this bill was written, at least in part, in response to the ” . . . perception that [its] courts are an attractive forum for libel claimants with little connection to this country, so that [its] law is respected internationally.” Obviously the Brits care what the international community thinks, so I think some potentially major changes are on the horizon. I’ll write a more detailed post regarding the draft bill when I get a chance. For now, here is a copy for your reading pleasure: UK Draft Defamation Bill. More to...
Read More »
Posted by Administration on Dec 25, 2011 in England, Laws, Libel Laws, Scotland, UK, United Kingdom, Wales
3 Accepting an offer to make amends. (1)I f an offer to make amends under section 2 is accepted by the aggrieved party, the following provisions apply. (2) The party accepting the offer may not bring or continue defamation proceedings in respect of the publication concerned against the person making the offer, but he is entitled to enforce the offer to make amends, as follows. (3) If the parties agree on the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for an order that the other party fulfil his offer by taking the steps agreed. (4) If the parties do not agree on the steps to be taken by way of correction, apology and publication, the party who made the offer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate, and may in particular— (a) make the correction and apology by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and (b )give an undertaking to the court as to the manner of their publication. (5) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of compensation, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as damages in defamation proceedings. The court shall take account of any steps taken in fulfilment of the offer and (so far as not agreed between the parties) of the suitability of the correction, the sufficiency of the apology and whether the manner of their publication was reasonable in the circumstances, and may reduce or increase the amount of compensation accordingly. (6) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of costs, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as costs awarded in court proceedings. (7) The acceptance of an offer by one person to make amends does not affect any cause of action against another person in respect of the same publication, subject as follows. (8) In England and Wales or Northern Ireland, for the purposes of the M1Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978— (a)the amount of compensation paid under the offer shall be treated as paid in bona fide settlement or compromise of the claim; and (b)where another person is liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly or otherwise), the person whose offer to make amends was accepted is not required to pay by virtue of any contribution under section 1 of that Act a greater amount than the amount of the compensation payable in pursuance of the offer. (9)In Scotland— (a)subsection (2) of section 3 of the Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 (right of one joint wrongdoer as respects another to recover contribution towards damages) applies in relation to compensation paid under an offer to make amends as it applies in relation to damages in an action to which that section...
Read More »
Posted by Administration on Dec 25, 2011 in England, Laws, Libel Laws, UK, United Kingdom, Wales
2) Offer to make amends. (1) A person who has published a statement alleged to be defamatory of another may offer to make amends under this section. (2) The offer may be in relation to the statement generally or in relation to a specific defamatory meaning which the person making the offer accepts that the statement conveys (“a qualified offer”). (3) An offer to make amends— (a) must be in writing, (b) must be expressed to be an offer to make amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, and (c) must state whether it is a qualified offer and, if so, set out the defamatory meaning in relation to which it is made. (4) An offer to make amends under this section is an offer— (a) to make a suitable correction of the statement complained of and a sufficient apology to the aggrieved party, (b) to publish the correction and apology in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, and (c) to pay to the aggrieved party such compensation (if any), and such costs, as may be agreed or determined to be payable. The fact that the offer is accompanied by an offer to take specific steps does not affect the fact that an offer to make amends under this section is an offer to do all the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). (5)An offer to make amends under this section may not be made by a person after serving a defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by the aggrieved party in respect of the publication in question. (6)An offer to make amends under this section may be...
Read More »
Recent Comments