header-logo header-logo

03 February 2017 / Nicholas Griffin KC
Issue: 7732 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

​Privacy v security

nlj_7732_griffin

Nicholas Griffin QC considers the CJEU Watson decision on UK surveillance law

 
  • A recent CJEU decision addresses an important aspect of UK surveillance law and finds it wanting.
  • It raises questions about the current UK regime governing the retention of and access to data about our communications.
  • The government says its approach is a necessary part of the fight against crime and terrorism. However, the view of privacy campaigners—that the law goes too far—found support at the CJEU.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered a judgment just before Christmas that is full of significance for the government’s approach to surveillance and the fight against crime and terrorism. It did so in the Watson case (in fact joined cases Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and others , C203/15 and C698/1 of 21 December 2016). The decision is a major victory for privacy campaigners such as MPs Tom Watson and David Davis, who were behind the case from its inception.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll