BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

Edinburgh: Foundation
3, 4 & 5 Oct

London: Practitioner
Starts Nov 13

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts Oct 11

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Nov 27

Training/Update/Events
Update: Nov 20
GDPR: Sept 12 & Oct 6
PIA: Dec 12
DP Audit: Dec 14

Amberhawk

« Privacy, the Press and journalist hacking: Answers to some unanswered questions | Main | Cartoon: with recent data losses in mind »

27/04/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is an interesting analysis of the issue, and from the VERY limited coverage that I have seen as an American, it offers a view that I have not see well represented. Thanks for that.

Also as an American, I start in an entirely different place. You probably already know what's coming. Our First Amendment frowns broadly on any prior restraint of the press. Even in national security matters, prior restraints are highly disfavored. Prior restraints for personal privacy are rarer, I believe.

So the entire discussion of standards for prior restraint is pretty foreign on this side of the Atlantic. We don't even have to get to the practicalities of the situation that it just won't work in nearly all cases. The Internet and all that. I am surprised that there isn't a superinjunction.org site (in a suitably foreign jurisdiction) that collects and reports on all the facts in these cases. Maybe there is, of course.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.