matthewheath

9 ms·

31.
by matthewheath 6y ago
The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR)[1] do not supersede GDPR as such, they sit alongside it. Section 22 is the relevant section they are hoping to rely on, specifically section 22(3) which allows them to: --------
32.
by matthewheath 6y ago
"Best Reasonable Efforts" is defined in clause 1.9 of the contract: > 1.9. “Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-size
33.
by matthewheath 6y ago
> no constitution We don't have a codified constitution, but we still have one; it's just made up of various written laws and unwritten things like conventions. I agree that the system isn't particularly democratic though:
34.
by matthewheath 6y ago
It would require a judgment from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be able to use this to challenge any future extradition requests from the US. This is because binding precedent is only set by the appellate courts and while this
35.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes.
36.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes, I quite agree that the prospect of success appears remote. They would have an arguable case for negligence regarding data inaccuracy though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they submit that as an additional claim and abandon the GDP
37.
by matthewheath 6y ago
The GDPR primarily focuses on the intent of the person processing or collecting the data rather than whether the activity you engaged in was private or public, although it does take into account reasonable expectations around privacy as wel
38.
by matthewheath 6y ago
The legal argument appears to be: 1. There have been breaches of data protection law (GDPR as implemented in the Data Protection Act 2018), e.g. players did not consent to data transfer, the data isn't accurate, etc. and it's done
39.
by matthewheath 6y ago
The court will take into account more than just the lack of the landlord's signature on an electronic document. They will look at the intention between you two, as well as any correspondence between you and the landlord's agents.
40.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Sure, but you don't have any contact information in your profile. My email address is in mine if you want to email me.
41.
by matthewheath 6y ago
I had a look at it a few years ago, but I've never played around with it. Do you like it?
42.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Web/backend programming with Ruby and Ruby on Rails. I quite enjoy writing Ruby code. I also dabble in Elixir as a hobby but not many places are using it. It's a cool language though.
43.
by matthewheath 6y ago
She doesn't reply to any of my emails or Slack messages :-)
44.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes. I started a new job (software engineering again) at the start of the pandemic. I feel like I burned a bridge with my manager prior to leaving so ... I won't be able to return to that company in the future. Haven't really spok
45.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Maybe, but there are several arguments against using it in this context: - Collection can be reduced by deducting VAT on company purchases, meaning the company only pays the difference between the VAT charged to the customer and the VAT the
46.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr Assange may appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
47.
by matthewheath 6y ago
I see. If she does authorise that, hopefully it is in the most sensitive, least privacy-invading way possible -- e.g. only releasing pertinent records to be viewed in a secure location for a limited period of time, no copies to be made, etc
48.
by matthewheath 6y ago
> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referr
49.
European Commission to challenge Apple tax bill verdict(bbc.co.uk)
3 points by matthewheath 6y ago|0 comments
50.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Prosecution can't commit perjury - only witnesses and interpreters can, given the statutory basis for perjury which is preferred to any common law perjury. She might've committed misconduct in public office.
51.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes, they are - but it's not perjury which relates specifically to witnesses and interpreters. It could well be misconduct in public office, or something though.
52.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Why is the judge guilty of perjury? Certainly her decisions have been questionable, and she will probably be criticised by the High Court, but perjury is specifically about lying under oath -- and she hasn't done that.
53.
by matthewheath 6y ago
> My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied. In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's o
54.
by matthewheath 6y ago
In the UK, all lawyers have an overriding duty to the court. This means they must not mislead the court. Doing so can lead to losing the ability to practice law.
55.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be car
56.
by matthewheath 6y ago
It's not entirely unreasonable for the judge to dismiss closing arguments: this is an administrative hearing, not a criminal case. There may well be sound case management reasons for doing so. Mr Assange can appeal to the High Court if
57.
by matthewheath 6y ago
> Can they legally enforce it? For Blackrock employees in the UK, probably. They could characterise failing to reveal such matters as gross misconduct (because of the perceived or actual conflict of interest) in their disciplinary polici
58.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Yes, that's true. Clumsy wording on my part, sorry.
59.
by matthewheath 6y ago
The extradition hearing is an administrative matter, not a criminal one. Julian Assange isn't being prosecuted in this matter, the case is simply establishing whether he can be extradited in accordance with the Extradition Act 2003 or
60.
by matthewheath 6y ago
Most of the time, yes.

More ›