‘Tracking People’ research network established

Tracking People Research NetworkA new research network has been established to investigate the legal, ethical, social and technical issues which arise from the use of wearable, non-removable tagging and tracking devices.

According to the network’s website, tracking devices are increasingly being used to monitor a range of individuals including “offenders, mental health patients, dementia patients, young people in care, immigrants and suspected terrorists”.

The interdisciplinary network is being hosted at the University of Leeds and aims to foster “new empirical, conceptual, theoretical and practical insights into the use of tracking devices”.

The network is being coordinated by Professor Anthea Hucklesby and Dr Kevin MacNish. It will bring together academics, designers, policy-makers and practitioners to explore critical issues such as:

  • privacy;
  • ethics;
  • data protection;
  • efficiency and effectiveness;
  • the efficacy and suitability of the equipment design;
  • the involvement of the private sector as providers and operators;
  • the potential for discriminatory use.

Readers of the Information Law and Policy Centre blog might be particularly interested in a seminar event scheduled for April 2017 which will consider the “legal and ethical issues arising from actual and potential uses of tracking devices across a range of contexts”.

For further information, check out the network’s website or email the team to join the network.

Full Programme: Annual Workshop and Evening Lecture

Restricted and Redacted: Where now for human rights and digital information control?

The full programme for the Information Law and Policy Centre’s annual workshop and lecture on Wednesday 9th November 2016 is now available (see below).

For both events, attendance will be free of charge thanks to the support of the IALS and our sponsor, Bloomsbury’s Communications Law journal.

To register for the afternoon workshop please visit this Eventbrite page.
To register for the evening lecture please visit this Eventbrite Page.

Please note that for administrative purposes you will need to book separate tickets for the afternoon and evening events if you would like to come to both events.



11.15am: Welcome

  • Judith Townend, University of Sussex
  • Paul Wragg, University of Leeds
  • Julian Harris, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London

11.30am-1pm: PANEL 1 – choice between A and B

Panel A: Social media, online privacy and shaming

Chair: Asma Vranaki, Queen Mary University of London

  1. David Mangan, City, University of London, Dissecting Social Media: Audience and Authorship
  2. Marion Oswald, Helen James, Emma Nottingham, University of Winchester, The not-so-secret life of five year olds: Legal and ethical issues relating to disclosure of information and the depiction of children on broadcast and social media
  3. Maria Run Bjarnadottir, Ministry of the Interior in Iceland, University of Sussex, Does the internet limit human rights protection? The case of revenge porn
  4. Tara Beattie, University of Durham, Censoring online sexuality – A non-heteronormative, feminist perspective

Panel B: Access to Information and protecting the public interest

Chair: Judith Townend, University of Sussex

  1. Ellen P. Goodman, Rutgers University, Obstacles to Using Freedom of Information Laws to Unpack Public/Private Deployments of Algorithmic Reasoning in the Public Sphere
  2. Felipe Romero-Moreno, University of Hertfordshire, ‘Notice and staydown’, the use of content identification and filtering technology posing a fundamental threat to human rights
  3. Vigjilenca Abazi, Maastricht University, Mapping Whistleblowing Protection in Europe: Information Flows in the Public Interest

1-2pm: LUNCH 

2-3.30pm: PANEL 2 – choice between A and B

Panel A: Data protection and surveillance

Chair: Nora Ni Loideain, University of Cambridge

  1. Jiahong Chen, University of Edinburgh, How the Best Laid Plans Go Awry: The (Unsolved) Issues of Applicable Law in the General Data Protection Regulation
  2. Jessica Cruzatti-Flavius, University of Massachusetts, The Human Hard Drive: Name Erasure and the Rebranding of Human Beings
  3. Wenlong Li, University of Edinburgh, Right to Data Portability (RDP)
  4. Ewan Sutherland, Wits University, Wire-tapping in the regulatory state – changing times, changing mores

Panel B: Technology, power and governance

Chair: Chris Marsden, University of Sussex

  1. Monica Horten, London School of Economics, How Internet structures create closure for freedom of expression – an exploration of human rights online in the context of structural power theory
  2. Perry Keller, King’s College, London, Bringing algorithmic governance to the smart city
  3. Marion Oswald, University of Winchester and Jamie Grace, Sheffield Hallam University, Intelligence, policing and the use of algorithmic analysis – initial conclusions from a survey of UK police forces using freedom of information requests as a research methodology
  4. Alison Holmes, Kent University, Private Actor or Public Authority? How the Status of Communications Service Providers affects Human Rights

3.30-5pm: PANEL 3 – choice between A and B

Panel A: Intermediary Liability

Chair: Christina Angelopoulos, University of Cambridge

  1. Judit Bayer, Miskolc University, Freedom and Diversity on the Internet: Liability of Intermediaries for Third Party Content
  2. Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, CNRS-Sorbonne Institute for Communication Sciences and Federica Giovanella, University of Trento, Intermediary Liability and Community Wireless Networks Design Shaping
  3. David Rolph, University of Sydney, Liability of Search Engines for Publication of Defamatory Matter: An Australian Perspective

Panel B: Privacy and anonymity online

Chair: Paul Wragg, University of Leeds

  1. Gavin Phillipson, University of Durham, Threesome injuncted: has the Supreme Court turned the tide against the media in online privacy cases?
  2. Fiona Brimblecombe, University of Durham, European Privacy Law
  3. Robin Callender Smith, Queen Mary University of London, Challenging the inexorable rise of anonymity orders – The Japanese Knotweed effect of Article 8
  4. James Griffin, University of Exeter and Annika Jones, University of Durham, The future of privacy in a world of 3D printing



Lecture Title: Heads and shoulders, knees and toes (and eyes and ears and mouth and nose…): The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on use of biometrics.

Biometrics are touted as one of the next big things in the connected world. Specific reference to biometrics and genetic data has been included for the first time in the General Data Protection Regulation. How does this affect existing provisions? Will the impact of the Regulation be to encourage or to restrict the development of biometric technology?

  • Speaker: Rosemary Jay, Senior Consultant Attorney at Hunton & Williams and author of Sweet & Maxwell’s Data Protection Law & Practice.
  • Chair: Professor Lorna Woods, University of Essex

EU Copyright Reform: Outside the Safe Harbours, Intermediary Liability Capsizes into Incoherence

In the following piece, Christina Angelopoulos, lecturer in intellectual property law at the University of Cambridge, analyses the aspects of the Commission’s new proposal for the digital single market directive that are relevant to intermediary liability. The post was originally published on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

As has by now been extensively reported, on 14th September the European Commission released its new copyright reform package. Prominent within this is its proposal for a new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.


The proposal contains an array of controversial offerings, but from the perspective of this intermediary liability blogger, the most interesting provision is the proposed Article 13 on ‘Certain uses of protected content by online services’. This is highly problematic in a number of different ways.

The Supposed Problem

As the Communication on a fair, efficient and competitive European copyright-based economy in the Digital Single Market (which was released in parallel to the proposal) explains, the new Article 13 is intended to address what in Brussels parlance over the past year has come to be termed the ‘value gap’. This refers to the idea that revenues generated from the online use of copyright-protected content are being unfairly distributed between the different players in the value chain of online publishing. A distinction is usually drawn in this regard between ad-funded platforms, such as YouTube, Dailymotion and Vimeo, and subscription-funded platforms, such as Spotify or Netflix. While the latter require the consent of copyright-holders to operate legally, the business model of the former revolves around user-created content (UCC). As a result, they tend to focus not on copyright licensing, but on notice-and-takedown systems, which allow them to tackle any unwanted infringements of copyright snuck onto their websites by their users. [To continue reading this post on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, click here.]

Information Law and Policy Centre Annual Lecture and Workshop

An afternoon workshop and evening lecture to be given by leading information and data protection lawyer Rosemary Jay.

Restricted and Redacted: Where now for human rights and digital information control?

The Information Law and Policy Centre is delighted to announce that bookings are now open for its annual workshop and lecture on Wednesday 9th November 2016, this year supported by Bloomsbury’s Communications Law journal.

For both events, attendance will be free of charge thanks to the support of the IALS and our sponsor, although registration will be required as places are limited.

To register for the afternoon workshop please visit this Eventbrite page.

To register for the evening lecture please visit this Eventbrite Page.

Please note that for administrative purposes you will need to book separate tickets for the afternoon and evening events if you would like to come to both events.

11am – 5pm (lunch and refreshments provided)

For the afternoon part of this event we have an excellent set of presentations lined up that consider information law and policy in the context of human rights. Speakers will offer an original perspective on the way in which information and data interact with legal rights and principles relating to free expression, privacy, data protection, reputation, copyright, national security, anti-discrimination and open justice.

We will be considering topics such as internet intermediary liability, investigatory and surveillance powers, media regulation, freedom of information, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, whistleblower protection, and ‘anti-extremism’ policy. The full programme will be released in October.

6pm-7.30pm (followed by reception)

The afternoon workshop will be followed by a keynote lecture to be given by Rosemary Jay, senior consultant attorney at Hunton & Williams and author of Sweet & Maxwell’s Data Protection Law & Practice. Continue reading

Information as an Asset: the business benefits of preserving records for providers of legal services

Legal recordsThe second Legal Records at Risk seminar will be held in the IALS Conference Room, 23 November 2016, 2-5.30 pm.


The 2004 Clementi report: Review of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales suggested that it was time for the providers of legal services to act in a more business-like way:

“Research shows that complaints arise as much from poor business service as from poor legal advice… In developing business systems to minimise costs whilst maintaining high standards, there is no reason why lawyers should not work alongside those with other skills, for example in finance or IT.”  

To this the Legal Records at Risk project would add information management. Recent developments (changes to legal services; globalisation; digital obsolescence) have transformed our legal framework, yet no concerted effort has as yet been made to protect and preserve the private sector records which document these changes.

The Legal Records at Risk Project

The Legal Records at Risk project, led by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and working in collaboration with the legal profession, the research community and archives, including The National Archives and the British Records Association, seeks to develop a national strategy to identify and preserve our legal heritage and to save modern (20th and 21st century) private sector legal records in the UK that may be at risk.

What are the specific benefits to specialized law institutions of managing their records effectively and preserving those of value for internal and external research?  Here are just a few which will be explored in this seminar, along with suggestions as to how they can be achieved:

  • cost and efficiency savings
  • business continuity
  • improved client confidence
  • service to justice
  • enhanced reputation
  • community engagement

Come to the seminar, visit our website or contact the Legal Records at Risk Project Director, Clare Cowling at clare.cowling@sas.ac.uk for information.

Applications open…Senior Lecturer/Lecturer in Law & Director: Information Law and Policy Centre

As readers of this blog might already be aware our first Director, Dr Judith Townend, has moved on to a new post at the University of Sussex. This means the Information Law and Policy Centre is now looking for a new Director…

“The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies of the School of Advanced Study is now seeking a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Law and Director: Information Law and Policy Centre.

“The role will be responsible for developing the research promotion and facilitation, teaching/training and public engagement for the Information Law & Policy Centre.

“This position is offered at 3 years in the first instance with the possibility of permanent extension after this period.”

For more information and details of how to apply visit the University of London’s vacancy page.

The close date for this role is at midnight on Sunday, 23 October 2016. 

Data Retention and the Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System: A Gap in the Oversight Regime

ANPR Intercept

The Advocate General’s Opinion in the recent Watson/Tele2 case re-emphasises the importance of considered justification for the collection and storage of personal data which has implications for a variety of data retention regimes. In this post, Lorna Woods, Professor of Internet Law at the University of Essex, considers the legal position of the system used to capture and store vehicle number plates in the UK.

The Data Retention Landscape

Since the annulment of the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) (DPD) with Digital Rights Ireland (Case C-293/12), it has become clear that the mass retention of data – even for the prevention of terrorism and serious crime – needs to be carefully justified. Cases such as Schrems (Case C-362/14) and Watson/Tele2 (Case C-698/15) re-emphasise this approach. This trend can be seen also in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, such as Zakharov v. Russia (47143/06) and Szabo v Hungary (11327/14 and 11613/14).

Not only must there be a legitimate public interest in the interference in individuals’ privacy and data protection rights, but that interference must be necessary and proportionate. Mechanisms must exist to ensure that surveillance systems are not abused: oversight and mechanisms for ex ante challenge must be provided.  It is this recognition that seems part of the motivation of the Investigatory Powers Bill currently before Parliament which deals – in the main – with interception and surveillance of electronic communications.

Yet this concern is not limited to electronic communications data, as the current case concerning passenger name records (PNR) data before the Court of Justice (Opinion 1/15) and other ECtHR judgments on biometric data retention (S and Marper v. UK (30562/04 and 30566/04)) illustrate.  Despite the response of the UK government to this jurisprudence, there seems to be one area which has been overlooked – at least with regard to a full oversight regime. That area is automated number plate recognition (ANPR) and the retention of the associated data. Continue reading

Update from the Information Law and Policy Centre

A reflection on what we’ve achieved to date, and a preview of what lies ahead for 2016/17

It is now 18 months since the official launch of the Information Law and Policy Centre at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

As the Centre’s first director, Dr Judith Townend, moves onto a new post at the University of Sussex, we thought it would be an opportune moment to offer you a brief summary of some of the Centre’s activities so far.

The Centre was launched in February 2015 with a remit to provide opportunities for academics, lawyers, policymakers, journalists, NGOs, charities and other parties to explore the way information and data is controlled, shared and disseminated.

As well as a small academic staff, its members include a number of associate research fellows based at various UK universities, and visiting fellows from around the world. An expert Advisory Board has helped us develop our programme of research.

At the launch event, presentations were given on topics as diverse as institutional data sharing, privacy vigilantism and cybersecurity. In the evening, Timothy Pitt-Payne QC, barrister at 11KBW and specialist in information rights, gave an informative and entertaining talk entitled ‘Does Privacy Matter?’

After an encouraging start, the Centre pursued a variety of inter-related research avenues.

One of the Centre’s main areas of interest during this period has been the progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill. During 2015, a team led by Professor Lorna Woods sought to establish the legal provenance of as many clauses in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill as possible. The Centre also collated commentary and other materials related to the Bill. These online resources support research into issues raised by the Bill around privacy, security and data sharing.

The Centre has also taken an active interest in the government’s Prevent strategy and the potential impact on freedom of expression and academic freedom brought about by the enforcement of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. In October 2015, in collaboration with the Human Rights Consortium at the School of Advanced Study, the Information Law and Policy Centre held a one day event considering how the Act might affect universities, their staff and students. The keynote was delivered by the Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable.

The Centre’s work on intellectual property law, led by Dr Christina Angelopoulos (who will be taking up a post at the University of Cambridge in October), has focused primarily on the law of copyright. The Centre has been particularly interested in the relationship between human rights and copyright, the issue of intermediary liability for copyright infringement and the need to re-evaluate the position of copyright in the modern economic and technological landscape. Most recently the centre hosted the launch of Angela Daly’s new book on the legal implications of 3D printing for copyright law.

More broadly, the Information Law and Policy Centre has also contributed to events coordinated by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. In particular, the Centre has assisted with a number of events exploring the humanity of law including ‘The Humanity of Judging‘, ‘Judgecraft and Emotions’ and ‘The Humanity of Barristers: Stories from the Bar’. In June 2016, the Centre helped organised an exhibition of drawings from the UK Supreme Court and other courts which provide artist Isobel Williams’ perspective on the human participants involved in legal proceedings.

In between times, the Centre has considered a range of other issues including access to courts data and the principle of open justice, freedom of information and expression, the right to be forgotten, whistleblowing in the digital age, and the interaction of UK law with the EU in relation to the EU referendum.

Speakers have included the Scottish Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew, Heather Rogers QC, former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Frank La Rue, Dominic Grieve QC MP,  Jessica Simor QC, and investigative journalists Heather Brooke and Ewen Macaskill. Numerous academics have joined discussion panels or led seminars; among these were Dr Judith Bannister, Professor Eric Barendt, Professor Ian Cram, and Professor Lilian Edwards.

We have offered training in law and ethics for research, and on public policy engagement for PhD students and early career researchers. A list of resources from our events and training can be found here.

We believe the Centre has had a strong start over the last 18 months and we would like to thank you for all your support of the Information Law and Policy Centre during this time. The Centre is only successful because of those of you who have attended events, given presentations, written guest blog posts, contributed to our research activities and encouraged us in the Centre’s work. We are especially grateful to our excellent advisors – both official and unofficial – and to all the external organisations and institutions with which we have partnered.

And more events are to come! Activities for autumn 2016 include ongoing research on protection for whistleblowers and journalists, an annual workshop themed on information control and human rights sponsored by Bloomsbury’s Communications Law journal (9th November), and a seminar and panel discussion at London’s Free Word Centre to celebrate 250 years since Freedom of Information took root in Sweden in 1766 (8th December).

Looking ahead, we hope the Information Law and Policy Centre has an important contribution to make in the future bringing together academics, policymakers and practitioners in this field to discuss and research these issues.

As such, we are looking forward to seeing how the Information Law and Policy Centre develops under a new Director who will be appointed in the near future: the post will be advertised shortly via the University of London website.

For inquiries about the Centre’s activities, please contact our part-time research assistant Dr Daniel Bennett (daniel.bennett@sas.ac.uk).




Brexit: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”

Brexit IT law scrabble

In the following editorial, Professor Lilian Edwards considers the implications of the Brexit vote for information law and assesses the mood amongst the academic community in the aftermath of the EU Referendum.

The article was first published in Volume 13, Issue 2 of SCRIPT-ed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society. Professor Edwards’ views do not represent those of the Information Law and Policy Centre or the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. 

On 23 June 2016 a slim majority of UK voters decided we should leave the EU in one of the great political upsets of British political history. On 24 June, the next day, CREATe,[1] the RCUK copyright and business models centre which I have helped run since 2012, ran a one-day festival at the Royal Society of the Arts in London. This was designed to be a showcase and celebration of four years of working at the cutting edge of copyright and how it either helps or hinders the creative industries and arts. Hundreds of academics signed up to show and see, including the Director of CREATe, Martin Kretschmer of Glasgow University, from Germany by birth, and many others from all over Europe and beyond.

It was a classic international IT/intellectual property event: analysing laws made throughout the world to regulate globalised cultural markets, transnational data and product flows, disruptive technologies that disregard borders, and audiences as likely to listen to music made in Brazil via decentralised P2P networks, as watch Netflix series made in the US, or use smartphones made in Japan to watch Hindi pop videos on YouTube.

In the event, the CREATe Festival became more of a wake. Reportedly, experienced academics, who thought themselves hardened to trauma by years of bombardment from REF, TEF and NSS, were almost in tears at the first session. This writer, derelict of duty, was not there to corroborate, still staring like a rabbit in the headlights at the TV in a hotel bedroom in Docklands, where the dominant tech, business and financial workers were almost equally in shock.

So, Brexit. As the dust not so much settles as temporarily accumulates while we work out what on earth happens next, what are the implications for IT law and UK academe? Are they really as bad as they seemed that morning? Continue reading

C-494/15 – Tommy Hilfiger: No Difference between Online and Real World Marketplaces for IP Enforcement

In the following piece, Christina Angelopoulos, post-doc researcher at the Information Law and Policy Centre of the University of London, analyses the recent judgment of the CJEU in case C-494/15 Tommy Hilfiger. The post was originally published on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

On 7 July 2016, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) handed down its decision in Tommy Hilfiger (case C-494/15). The case concerned the imposition of an injunction on Delta Center, a company that sublets sales areas in the “Prague Market Halls” (Pražská tržnice) to traders, after it was found that counterfeit goods were sold in the marketplace.

The requested injunction would require that Delta Center refrain from: a) renting space to persons previously found by the courts to have engaged in trademark infringement; b) include terms in their rental contracts that oblige market traders to refrain from infringement; and c) publish an apology for past infringements by third party traders. [To continue reading the rest of the post on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, click here.]