Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.200.157

Forum Moderators: not2easy & rumbas

Message Too Old, No Replies

Twitter UK Might Become A Target For UK Privacy Law

     
5:57 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:24240
votes: 534


Twitter UK Might Become A Target For UK Privacy Law [bbc.co.uk]
Twitter's decision to open a UK office could leave it more vulnerable to prosecution over what its users write.

Lawyers who spoke to the BBC agreed that the move meant the company may no longer be able to claim to be solely US-based and immune to English law.

The micro-blogging site is the subject of a High Court legal challenge in relation to the naming of a footballer who had obtained a privacy injunction.

Twitter has so far declined to comment on the case.

Until recently, Twitter's operations were largely confined to Silicon Valley in California.



Earlier Story
Footballer takes proceedings against Twitter
[webmasterworld.com]
6:10 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


If said "celebrity" had kept his ***** in his pants then none of this would have happened.

I find it repugnant that people who are in the public eye, and who have zero discretion or morals, think they can do what they like without consequences - and then try to use the law to protect whatever they have done from the public gaze, by taking out a "superinjunction".

The UK legal system has better things to be doing than stopping newspapers printing "who is doing who" and who is "paying for services rendered" all supposedly without the wife knowing.
6:30 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 29, 2006
posts:1312
votes: 0


"superinjunction"

This particular case does not involve a "superinjunction".

The term is used solely for a secret injunction, the very existence of which cannot be mentioned in the media. In this case, the applicant's name was withheld and another (named) party was gagged.

The UK legal system

The UK does not have a single legal system.

A Scottish newspaper published details of the case on its front page, but was careful to restrict circulation to Scotland and omitted the story from its website.

/ pedantry

The funniest part of the Streisand Effect was the chants at the player's home football stadium.

He has now been named in Parliament and the English media feel free to follow suit.

His name is... irrelevant.

...
7:09 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


Whoever he is, he is an idiot. And probably an overpaid one at that.
9:29 am on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:24240
votes: 534


It's not possible to control the people in the same way that control can be placed on a news organisation. People will talk about these things down the pub, at work, or wherever (if they have any interest).

I dislike the aspect of just because you've got money you can gag the press.

Also, the fact that everyone knows who it is just makes the whole thing like a farce.

The key part of this story now is not the footballer and his indiscretions, but the result of the test of the law and new media.
10:09 am on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2004
posts:333
votes: 0



Whoever he is, he is an idiot. And probably an overpaid one at that.


Idiot - probably yes. Overpaid - one of the few who's probably worth it.
12:32 pm on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Nov 29, 2007
posts:385
votes: 0


The judges used a part of the Human rights act to create a privacy law without this been passed by parliament - this is wrong.

This time the footballer in question may be irrelevant but the next time may involve a genuine case the public need to know about.
6:31 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 16, 2004
posts:1341
votes: 0


Considering it's front page news with his name, pictures and bits of the sordid details... I don't think he'll be cashing in or shutting down Twitter.


Ryan Giggs faces a public trial under world's biggest spotlight
[guardian.co.uk...]


As Tiger Woods might say; "It's par for the [inter]course" if you're a public figure.
7:29 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 15, 2003
posts:2606
votes: 0


The news is out there. Another person fails victim to themselves.

What is amazing to me is, why do people with secrets they want kept private continue to cause a stink when things are leaked out? The Streisand Effect is well documented.

When you don't want info out there the Internet is like quicksand. The more you struggle against it the quicker you sink.