Chilling. Surely there needs to be more deterrent to stop MI5 and the Home Office from turning a blind eye to these corporate failings? There's been very little attention paid to this judgment; perhaps there should be an obligation on the Investigating Powers Tribunal to publicise their decisions in some way, if the judgment itself is supposedly a remedy..
"Deeply disturbing" it undoubtedly is; but perhaps the continuing cause for concern is not only that The Times, a newspaper of record, devoted only about 50 words to its report of the case; and the current Home Secretary dismissed the established breaches by her Department as merely "historic". Had such a response been part of a plea in mitigation, demonstrating a total lack of contrition for the heinous errors identified by the Tribunal, I question whether the Tribunal could conscientiously have concluded that the appropriate remedy was the judgment itself.
Thanks for this report. The interests of National Security never seem to encompass the fundamental importance of personal privacy or things like legal privilege. The deliberate withholding of information from those with oversight responsibilities says it all. Desperately frustrating for those who must have worked so hard to bring this case… Oliver Franks will be spinning in his grave 🤷😢🙏
Chilling. Surely there needs to be more deterrent to stop MI5 and the Home Office from turning a blind eye to these corporate failings? There's been very little attention paid to this judgment; perhaps there should be an obligation on the Investigating Powers Tribunal to publicise their decisions in some way, if the judgment itself is supposedly a remedy..
"Deeply disturbing" it undoubtedly is; but perhaps the continuing cause for concern is not only that The Times, a newspaper of record, devoted only about 50 words to its report of the case; and the current Home Secretary dismissed the established breaches by her Department as merely "historic". Had such a response been part of a plea in mitigation, demonstrating a total lack of contrition for the heinous errors identified by the Tribunal, I question whether the Tribunal could conscientiously have concluded that the appropriate remedy was the judgment itself.
“We expect that lessons have been learned.” But that is not what history tells us. This should affect the EU data protection adequacy rulings.
Yes, indeed: many thanks, Joshua.
This is- is it not?- yet another example of an infuriating shrugging of the shoulders, as in:” Nothing to see here- let’s move on”.
Thanks for this report. The interests of National Security never seem to encompass the fundamental importance of personal privacy or things like legal privilege. The deliberate withholding of information from those with oversight responsibilities says it all. Desperately frustrating for those who must have worked so hard to bring this case… Oliver Franks will be spinning in his grave 🤷😢🙏