The Guardian newspaper in its July 3 article and other media are using a quote from an MP stating that the review should include a look at the issues surrounding data protection which has a lot more relevance than how many times the Home Secretary has used those words to explain the government's surveillance.

This is consistent with EU laws about data retention.

“There will not be any legal obligation to retain data on individuals who have been lawfully allowed to leave the EU, while the ECJ works on its appeal against the UK” - The Guardian , June 2016. UK based The Guardian published information through their website that, the court of appeal ruling and the UK Data Protection Act and other EU rules are now likely to apply to the US. Both those laws and the Court of Appeal rulings will be applied by the Home Office, which is a UK government department responsible for overseeing the operation of the law. The British Government is not expected to abandon that approach while it reviews those decisions. The UK, like other countries, has an interest in privacy.

“Although the government is considering whether to invoke the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case, the Home Office has not yet made any formal recommendation to the court” - BBC, June 4 2016. The British Cabinet Office is a government department that manages key information and decision making throughout UK government. It does not have to give a judgement. It is a department responsible for providing legal advice, but it does not have to give a decision. The only decision to be made is whether or not the Home Office should consider putting information into the public domain, either directly, or indirectly through other departments. The Court made no formal recommendations, but it did not say, as the government is using the decision to try and get its way, that the UK should abandon or modify other EU laws and legal commitments. The government needs to do more than cite “The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Act” without any explanation as to why the Home Office should ignore that rule.

“ It is unclear , if it is a priority, whether the government is seeking to use the ruling to avoid adopting any EU-specific legislation” - The Guardian , May 9 2016. Even if the decision in the court of Appeal is not accepted, the UK will still have to adopt new laws. The House of Commons Committee on Home Affairs, which was looking at the UK’s data retention law in April 2016, was informed in July 2015 by the Home Office that, after reviewing the ECJ decision, it had concluded that, because these decisions were not intended to be “constricted” in any direct way, the government should not have done so. This means that the decision on whether the Home Office should implement the law on privacy will not be subject to further consideration.

“ The ECJ’s ruling that the UK’s data retention law fails to meet its own safeguards and requirements for “collective” data has not led to the withdrawal of the law “ - The Independent , July 22, 2016. That is not the way it is being reported. The BBC and The Times are now using a story where the ECJ is not mentioned as a reason to withdraw the Home Office’s data retention law and a Home Office spokesperson has now issued another article which states that, “While the EC’s decision may have had a very limited effect on the UK, the UK itself is still following EU law. The Home Secretary is working with the UK’s main data protection authorities to ensure we maintain the stringent standards for what is public and what is private.” This is consistent with the Home Office statement above, that the government’s job is to follow EU rules. The UK also says: “… the decision in the court of appeal does not lead to any withdrawal of the legislation, which remains in force for a further 12 months.” This would suggest that the legislation is going to continue and that the government may be seeking to change its data retention rules by next June, which is after the ruling is published.

“ British MPs are calling for an independent review into the UK’s new data retention policy “ - Guardian , July 3 2016. This is where it gets a little confusing. The fact that they are calling for an independent review is not news (some have actually called for this and not just the government) but not a call for an independent review by anything else. The Guardian newspaper (in its July 3 article) and other media are using a quote from an MP stating that the review should include a look at the issues surrounding data protection which has a lot more relevance than how many times the Home Secretary has used those words to explain the government’s surveillance. This is all in relation to the Home Office’s own report. All the government has done is call for this review. The Guardian also states that “ the prime minister and home secretary have committed to undertaking this review before any statutory change to what data is considered public information. “ This is misleading. The Home Office will be responsible for proposing the changes to the Act. The government will then publish those proposals and, as the bill is under review, the Home Office will be responsible for submitting them. The Home Secretary has made an

Once you understand how these viruses are transmitted, this disease poses a significant challenge for those who do not have specialized immunologists, the medical profession in general, and the United States government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced her intention to continue granting Germany's asylumseekers the right to social welfare under a scheme called Sickatschutz, so long as they don't commit crimes.
Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×