A recent survey carried out by Econsultancy asked over 700 digital marketers for their opinions on the new cookie law and, it has to be said, the response was not particularly favourable.

The aim of the directive is to cut out unregulated applications of behaviour tracking technology and increase regulation on particular aspects of privacy and e-communications. The law will require website owners to ask the site user’s permission before they drop or read cookies on their browsers.

So what are cookies? Cookies are small chunks of data which are stored, by a website, in a browser and then returned to that same website via the browser. Cookies were designed with the intention of enabling websites to remember certain actions performed by a browser on that site and, depending on the cookies used, can remember that information for the duration of the session, a week, a month or even several years.

There are a wide variety of cookies used on the internet including the secure cookie, the Http Only cookie, the session cookie, the persistent cookie and the third-party cookie and, whilst not all cookies are bad, they can be used, in the wrong hands, to collate extensive records of a user’s browsing histories and even for hacking into user’s accounts and it is this privacy issue which is the cause for concern.

However, cookies play a huge part in the world of digital marketing; one example of a cookie would be the use of an online shopping cart or basket where the cookie enables the shopper to store the items they wish to buy whilst they continue to browse the site.

Another example would be when you go to log in to a secure online account, you tap in your email address and your password is automatically remembered. It is perhaps here that we can see the potential for hackers who will only require an email address to gain access to an account.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published some guidance for website owners within the directive on what steps should be taken towards compliance with the new law and this includes:

• Carrying out an audit of all cookie usage on their sites

• Assessing the intrusiveness of each cookie used

• And, depending on how intrusive the cookies are, choosing an appropriate consent mechanism

In the directive the ICO give some examples of intrusive cookie use and provide some options for consent mechanisms but even they admit they aren’t really sure what compliance with the new law is likely to look like.

Whilst some website owners have begun, with much reluctance, to put plans in place in an attempt to comply with this somewhat confusing new law only 18% of the 700 digital marketers who took part in the survey believe that the directive is a positive step for the internet.

67% of the participants admitted that they were aware of the date when the new directive will come into play and 57% said they had read the directive however, 46% have yet to carry out a cookie audit on their websites and many don’t intend to at all.

One marketer who took part in the survey stated that his entire business model relied on tracking transactions on his company’s websites; he claimed that his business wouldn’t exist without the use of cookies and he fears that if he follows the directive his business will simply disappear.

Other businesses intend to wait and watch to see what happens to other companies before following suit and complying. There is the risk of being prosecuted by non-compliance but many companies are of the opinion that ‘you are damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t’.

A further fear for website owners is that, at present their users probably know very little or don’t wish to know about cookies but, with the new ‘cookie law’ making headlines and issues of privacy and tracking being rammed down their throats, they may start running scared and where does that leave the majority of online businesses?

Good question.

The aim of these rules is to protect the Games’ sponsors who have, essentially, paid for the event, but many are worried that the severity of the restrictions could have a negative impact on London’s economy.

Despite the UK already having a set of legal protections in place for copyright holders and brands the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have demanded their own set of rules which has led to participating governments having to introduce tailor made legislation as an added blanket of legal protection.

Specific legislation in place

The Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act was passed in 2006 and this Act, alongside the Olympic Symbol Act 1995, gives the Games and sponsors a level of protection which goes above and beyond all the contract and copyright laws already in existence, with any breach of these Acts treated as a criminal offence.

This added legislative protection means that anyone who isn’t a sponsor will not have the right to use images or wording which could lead to the false interpretation that their company is, in some way, linked to the Olympic Games.

This includes the use of any of the two words from the list below used in conjunction with each other:

‘Games’, ‘Twenty-Twelve’, ‘2012’ and ‘Two Thousand and Twelve’.

Even just the use of one of these words in conjunction with words such as ‘Summer’, ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’, ‘Bronze’, ‘London’, ‘Sponsors’ or ‘Medals’ may well be considered a breach of the Acts.

It seems that many non-sponsor businesses will be walking on eggshells this July.

Are things not being taken a little too far? For example – last year the organisers of an event entitled the ‘Great exhibition 2012’ were threatened with legal action by Locog (London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games) because the numbers ‘2012’ were used in the title.

A little petty don’t you think? And perhaps Locog thought so too because they later withdrew their objection but it didn’t stop them from interrupting a recent photo shoot with Sally Gunnell.

The photo shoot was intended to promote easyjet’s new flight routes from London’s Southend Airport. So why was it interrupted I hear you ask, simply because a Union Jack flag was draped over Sally’s shoulders and Locog thought this bore too closer resemblance to a similar pose of Sally’s in 1992 when she won Olympic Gold in Barcelona.

That was 20 years ago, is anyone really going to remember Sally’s exact stance?

Whilst Locog are just trying to protect their sponsors they are putting non-sponsoring businesses in an awful predicament with many of those businesses being forced to seek legal advice to find out how they can stay on the right side of the ‘Olympic Law’.

What should have been an economic boost is now actually causing many small business owners to quake in their boots. These small businesses can’t afford to buy rights to specific advertising or create their own flashy advertising campaigns to promote their businesses and are having to watch their every step in case they inadvertently advertise too close to the mark and end up being prosecuted.

Is this really the way Locog should be behaving?

In a couple of months it will all be over but what’s the betting that, if Locog get their way, it will be many years before some business owners are back on their feet after being sued to the hilt for using a picture of a medal and the date ‘2012’ in their shop window.

Let’s take a look at some of Locog’s stringent regulations.

Rules for athletes participating in the Olympic Games:

• Athletes cannot make any comments on social networking sites regarding other participant’s activities

• Athletes cannot post any video or audio content on social networking sites or YouTube of either the athletes’ village or the interior of any Olympic venue

• Athletes will not be allowed to ‘Tweet’ or blog about what brand of energy bar or breakfast cereal they have been eating unless that brand is an official sponsor of the Games

 Rules for non-sponsor businesses

• Non-sponsor businesses are not allowed to offer tickets to the Games as part of a company promotion

• They cannot use images which could make the public think they are in some way linked or in association with the Olympics
  

• Nor can they use phrases such as “Help us to make it a Gold 2012” or “Supporting our athletes at the Olympic Games 2012”

The Data Protection Act gives individuals the right to know what ‘personal information’ an institution is holding and processing about them. So long as no exemption applies, individuals can request and receive a copy of that information.

To access the information and obtain a copy of it, individuals need to make a data subject access request. The request cannot be made over a telephone but must be evidenced in writing (including e-mails and faxes). Dependent on the circumstances and individual requests may vary from very broad in nature (i.e. all information that you hold about me) or very specific (i.e. copy of medical records between 24/04/2010 and 24/05/2011).

What information is classed as sensitive?

Personal data automatically is classed as sensitive if it is about an identifiable, living individual and includes any of the following:

• racial or ethnic origin;
• political opinions;
• religious beliefs;
• trade union membership;
• physical of mental health;
• sexual life;
• commission of offences or alleged offences.

What information can be requested?

Under the Data Protection Act, individuals have the right to be informed of the following:

• Whether the data subject to processing is being personal and if so:
  • Full description of that personal data;
  • The purposes for which the data is being processed;
  • To whom the data is being disclosed or will potentially be disclosed.

Individuals may also request a copy of the data and information about how decisions about their data are being made.

Format of the Subject Access Request

Under the Act, any request for personal data is classed as a subject access request. Data controllers are entitled to ask data subjects for a fee of £10 to cover the costs of processing the request. The £10 charge does not apply to medical records.

The data controller has 40 calendar days to reply. Before replying, the data controller may also ask the following:

• The data controller can ask for the subject access request to be submitted in writing. This is to prevent potential fraudulent access request. A form submitted in writing will help the data controller to satisfy its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.
• The data controller is also entitled to request the data subject to provide more specific information about the data subject to the subject access request. This will enable the data controller to locate the information more easily. Although, individuals are perfectly entitled to request all information held about them it is useful when individuals cooperate with data controllers and submit relatively narrow and specific requests.

Once the above have been satisfied, the 40 days response period starts to run. It is prudent to ensure that proper procedures are in place to correctly date the files and keep all correspondence in chronological order, not to miss any deadlines.

Third Parties

When processing data subject requests it is important to give consideration to the following:

Does the data subject request directly or indirectly require disclosure of information about another third party individual?

The Act applies to information about third parties that inevitably forms a part of the primary subject access request. To the maximum possible extent you should always try to fulfil your obligations in relation to data subject requests without identifying third party individuals.

If it is not possible to effectively provide the information without disclosing data about a third party, you should refer to section 7(4) of the Act for a list of full considerations that should be taken into account.

Have you obtained third party consent?

The best way of dealing with your obligations under the Act is to obtain third party’s consent. This is not a requirement and whether or not it is reasonable to ask for consent will depend on particular circumstances. For instance, it would not be appropriate to ask if by asking for a consent you would inevitably have to disclose information about the requesting individual.

Section 7(6) of the Act provides further guidance in relation to the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether or not it would be ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’ to make a disclosure without consent.

Particularly, patent infringements in the pharmaceutical industry are not only impacting on companies’ ability to grow but also pose a significant health and safety risk to consumers. Both the EU and the US have been developing anti-infringement laws tackling the above-mentioned issues. The US International Trade Commission has expressed its concern over lack of appropriate legal framework for protection of intellectual property in China.

The United States

In the US alone nearly 28% of the overall US workforce is directly reliant on intellectual property. The biggest American movie studios, pharmaceutical concerns, car manufacturers and other companies base their business models around copyrights, trademarks and patents. Based on the above information it is estimated that IP-reliant businesses are worth as much as $5 trillion, what amounts to 35% of the entire US gross domestic product. IP has been identified as vitally important to as many as 75 different industries which directly and indirectly provide employment to 40 million American workers. Furthermore, the abovementioned IP-reliant industries generate 61% of all exports and on average fund 42% higher wages than in other industries.

The European Union

In the EU, only between 2009 and 2010 in Germany and the UK value of detained intellectual property infringing goods amounted to €1 billion. It is estimated that over 84% of all counterfeit goods originate from China. On the other hand, nearly 93% of all fake drugs and medical products are made in India. The value of intellectual property infringement in the medical goods sector in the EU is estimated to amount to as much as €3.2 million. The margin of customs officers’ error is minimal with only 2.5% of all goods detained being subsequently classified as legitimate.

Digital Piracy

Although, much of intellectual property infringement in physical goods originates from China, digital piracy is common in most Western economies. IFPI/Nielsen estimate that nearly 1 in 4 internet users globally accesses illegal content every month. Large saturation of infringers can be found in Spain and Brazil where the rate is at over 40%. In 50% of cases the content is accessed through Peer to Peer networks; however some channels such as blogs, private forums, streaming website and smartphone applications are of a rapidly growing concern. In 2008, the creative industries generated €860 billion and provided employment to 6.5% of the total EU’s workforce. The UK and Germany are unquestionable leaders in terms of both the revenues generated by and people employed in the creative industries. Both of these markets along with the French have already suffered job losses of approximately 40,000.00 people. Current estimations in the EU predict that by 2015 the losses in creative industries such as music can rise up to €240 million and result in 1.2 million permanent redundancies.

Piracy poses a huge threat to global economies. Virtually all industries in modern Western economies are directly or indirectly dependent on intellectual property rights. Both the US and the EU need to improve their current regimes and in particular their ability to tackle piracy originating from abroad. In the digital context, it is crucial to cooperate more effectively with the Chinese authorities to ensure that websites and servers offering free access to digital pirated content are efficiently removed. Although, current anti-piracy measures in force are effective against infringements relating to physical goods, the Internet is also main distribution channels for most physical counterfeits and that should be more specifically addressed by the relevant regulations that were not originally designed with the Internet in mind.

The Intellectual Property Office has even launched a brand new scheme – an IP Health Checks pilot scheme to help small enterprises to identify and protect their intellectual property. With the recent changes in the UK making intellectual property lawsuits more accessible to small businesses it is vitally important to raise awareness. Below you will find summary of the recent changes brought into UK IP law and a list of useful tips that can potentially help you identify and protect your IP in a more efficient way. Another useful tool can be found here.

The IP Law Changes

The Government has introduced the Patents County Court (Financial Limit) Order 2011. The Order will make it more affordable and easier for small and medium enterprises to bring lawsuits for intellectual property infringements. The Order implements a new limit of £500,000.00 for damages in the Patents County Court. This means that cases will be likely to be resolved without the need for costly litigation in the High Court. In the past, cases below the £500,000.00 threshold were not automatically allocated to the Patents County Court and exposed businesses to virtually unlimited costs – this put off many small businesses from even considering bringing a claim.

Any IP to protect?

Many small business owners fail to recognise the uniqueness of their products or industrial processes. Intellectual property refers to a number of different categories of original creations. The protected classes of inventions include both tangible and intangible works and in commercial context mainly include industrial patents, creations and trademarks.

Checklist

• How well-developed is your brand? Do your customers recognise your logo or name and buy your products because they clearly know that they come from your company?
• Is your company involved in any of the following:
  • Publishing and printing including books, newspapers, brochures or packaging.
  • Information technology including software or online solutions.
  • Music industry including composing or recording music.
  • Choreography.
  • Sculpture.
  • Entertainment including movies and other audiovisual materials.
  • Architecture.
  • Industrial innovations and design.
• Are any of your goods or services that you manufacture or plan to provide unique to your company?
• Have the above been developed by somebody employed or contracted by your business; or have you licensed them from a third-party on either exclusive or non-exclusive basis?

Businesses that provide unique and original products or solutions are likely in the possession of valuable intellectual property. Even if you have not developed the IP in-house, but contracted your work out to somebody else the IP is still likely to belong to you so long as you have paid for it. If you have obtained a licence to use the IP you are entitled to benefit from it and likely to be responsible to cooperate fully with the owner to ensure that nobody infringes the IP.

• Have you done your research by conducting trademark/copyright searches with the Intellectual Property Office? – If not you can search the register for free at the UK IPO’s website.
• Do you use contractual arrangements to protect your IP from being disclosed? – You should always ensure that not only your employees are under non-disclosure obligations but foremost anybody who is externally contracted to test the IP.
• Do your employees keep logs of any inventions made and are they properly trained and instructed on how to identify original creations?
• Have you every registered any intellectual property rights with the UK Intellectual Property Office?
• Did you know that you can easily register your trademark in the European Community at the same time as registering your IP with the UK IPO?

The constant number of acquisitions, joint ventures and takeovers in the information technology sector makes intellectual property an increasingly important topic. Entities participating in the above-mentioned transactions need to adequately protect themselves against being misled or overestimating the value of the transaction. For this reason, they will inevitably need to conduct intellectual property due diligence.

Properly carried out intellectual property due diligence can be beneficial both to the buyer and the seller. For the buyer, the results of proper analysis can be crucial in determining whether or not the transaction is economically viable and in line with the business’ policies and expansion strategies. On the other hand, the seller has an opportunity to compare his or her own estimates of the business’ worth with those conducted by the buyer.

Caveat Emptor

Since the doctrine of ‘caveat emptor’ applies to most acquisition transactions it is for the benefit of both parties to properly carry out due diligence. Under the doctrine the buyer is not able to recover any losses suffered as a result of defects that the seller had not intentionally kept hidden from the buyer. Therefore, the buyer has to ensure that all facts about the intellectual property are scrutinised. On the other hand, the seller so long as he or she fully cooperates with the buyer and facilitates the buyer’s due diligence, does not have to worry about being sued for any post-completion defects.

What to check?

Below you will find a list of essential tips for conducting efficient intellectual property due diligence process. The list is by no means exhaustive and you should always seek professional advice from legal specialists and accountants before acquiring any business, engaging into joint venture or simply entering into an agreement.

Firstly, it is surprisingly common for the buyer to fail to scrutinise basic facts about the intellectual property assets subject to the transaction. Right at the start the buyer should verify the following:

• Who is the actual owner of the assets in question?
• Is the asset in question adequately protected (i.e. not expired)?
• Is the agreement in question for exclusive or non-exclusive rights?

Secondly, especially when undertaking a full audit during a merger, acquisition, takeover or licensing arrangement where copyright, trademark or patent rights are involved; it is important to at least follow the below checklist:

• Employ an experienced IP professional who will evaluate the true value of the IP rights in question. If the estimation does not reflect your expectations discuss it.

• Fully understand what assets and rights are subject to the transaction.

• Verify all documentation provided by the seller with particular emphasis on registration documents. Commission an independent professional specialist to verify and confirm the history of the IP rights in question. Ensure that all registration fees have always been paid on time and that at no point has the IP been questioned by a third party. It is also important to check for any potential pending disputes and litigation.

• Request formal disclosure of ownership details for all IP owned by the seller. Check if the seller does not himself or herself own any conflicting IP rights that would put limitations on the acquired IP.

• Conduct relevant searches to ensure that the IP is not subject to any debt finance arrangements (i.e. subject to mortgage).

• For patent rights it is important to ask for any related patent rights, especially any future improvements to the existing pattern that might have been discovered and subject to patent protection as well.

• Request details regarding third party interests in the IP in question.

A lot of companies will invest time, resources and money into generating this information, as it can have a great impact on their profits. Trade secrets remain so defined even when they are disclosed to agents and employees, providing it is made clear that the information is confidential and any further disclosure is prohibited.

Theoretically speaking, the protection which covers trade secrets can last for an indefinite period. This is why it is advantageous compared with the type of protection which patenting offers, as this relates to a specific period of limited duration.

How Does a Trade Secret Remain Classified as a Trade Secret?

In order for a trade secret to remain so classified, the owner of the secret must be able to prove that he took reasonable steps to keep the information classified. If this can be proven, it remains a trade secret, and retains its legal protection. If it cannot be proven that reasonable steps were taken to keep the information classified then the owner may lose the trade secret, even if the way it was gained was by using an illegal method.

How are Trade Secrets Protected?

Trade secrets are normally protected through the use of non-disclosure and non-compete contracts with employees of the owner of the trade secret. This agreement to confidentiality is normally in exchange for an employment contract. If these contracts are then breached the owner is entitled to place a financial penalty upon the individual who disclosed the trade secret. The owner of the trade secret may also be able to obtain an injunction, damages or an account of profits from the court if their secret has been stolen.

These methods are also used in agreements between the owner of the trade secret and other businesses with which that owner has to work with or is otherwise engaged with.

In some countries, the theft of trade secrets now constitutes a crime. The UK protects trade secrets by enabling an injured party to apply for a search and seizure order (injunction) in order to preserve evidence or to prevent it from being destroyed.

When are Trade Secrets Protected?

Trade secrets are only legally protected if they have not been obtained using illegal/improper methods. It is also illegal to obtain someone else’s trade secret if that person is aware of the fact that the trade secret has been obtained from another by unauthorised means. Unauthorised means could include bribery, theft, the breach of a duty to uphold secrecy, misrepresentation or by spying (espionage).

What Measures can be Taken to Maintain the Confidentiality of a Trade Secret?

As has been mentioned previously, the owner of the trade secret must have taken measures to ensure the secret’s protection. This could include incorporating warnings or notices on written documents, security measures which are physical (for example, regular security checks), installing CCTV and restricting access for certain employees to information or computers.

If reasonable measures are taken from the beginning, this provides for the most cost-effective method of protecting a company’s trade secrets. As registration is not required to protect a trade secret, the costs involved in protection are normally made up of ensuring there are sufficient security measures and policies in place to prevent trade secret theft, as well as ensuring these are efficiently monitored. Costs will include any legal costs that need to be taken against those that have stolen trade secrets.

In 2012 the European Union proposed a reform on the framework to protect personal data, known as the EU Data Privacy Framework. Its purpose is to ensure that users maintain control over their personal data by increasing accountability and responsibility for those using it. The old Data Privacy Directive has not been updated since 1995 and is in desperate need of modernisation, particularly in the face of the growing number of social media and technology companies who use people’s personal data in ways that were not conceived of when the directive was first introduced.

The Data Privacy Framework introduces tougher penalties for infringers which can be up to €1million or 2% of global annual turnover. The proposals also include “the right to be forgotten”, which means that companies will have to delete personal data at the request of the user. Under the framework, breaches of personal data laws should be reported immediately (ideally within 24 hours), such as when Sony’s Playstation Network was hacked and customers will be required to give express consent to having their data used by companies, rather than companies simply making this assumption as they do at the moment.

The new framework does have some fierce critics and it has been argued that it is too onerous for businesses, particularly smaller businesses. One such proposal is the introduction of Data Protection Officers (DPO) inside all companies that have over 250 employees. They need to be independent and ensure that they do not have any conflicts of interest and therefore they cannot be CEOs or Board Members. They need to serve for a minimum of two years and will receive special employment protection so that they can only be dismissed for performance related issues and at this stage the situation is unclear with what happens with DPOs and gross misconduct issues. The question is will this work in practice with businesses policing themselves? Furthermore there are other undesirable proposals and limitations on the new rules such as rules on the conservation of special categories of data and an out of date approach to international data transfers, as well as a lack of clarity in other areas such as what exactly constitutes a breach of data protection?

The European Union also needs to be careful of over promising and under delivering, particularly in relation to matters like “the right to be forgotten”. Whilst reform is needed there are clearly some grey areas that need clarifying and as the proposals do not come into force until two years after they have been adopted, there is time for the European Union to fill in some gaps.

Finally, if past  and current experience of data protection law in the UK is anything to go by it will be very difficult to “police” these new laws in any event.

A recent trend involving employers asking prospective employees in the US for their social media log-in details is sweeping the employment sector and would-be employees are fighting back.

Violation of Personal Privacy?

Currently, the request for employees’ social media credentials only seems to be within public sector government employment and financial services but those in the technology sector are wondering if they will be next on the list to give up their personal information and the question being asked is, is this a violation of personal privacy?

Well, many prospective employees seem to think so and are looking for ways to avoid giving out this information.

It seems that technology companies are more supportive and encouraging towards the freedom of expression and speech and the creativity of their employees.

Why?

There are a number of reasons why would-be employers request the log-in credentials of individuals, if they are looking to fill a client-facing role they may want to access social networking sites to discover how an individual conducts themselves online. They will be looking for the tone and language used by the individual, their professionalism and the qualities or possible problems they may bring to the workplace.

Some financial services companies use the individual’s social media log-in details to keep track of the employee’s relationships with other companies they may be liaising with. The employer will be looking for instances where a conflict of interest may have occurred such as when an employee has given independent investment advice to another company or individual against company policy.

Many financial services companies disallow their employees to access social networking sites.

Another worrying factor with employees handing over their social media passwords is the personal information that becomes available such as marital status, sexual orientation and religious beliefs which the employer may take into consideration when processing the employee’s application.

Although it is against the law for an employer to discriminate against an individual when filling a post if the information is there in front of him he may use it to aid his decision, even if only subconsciously.

Tracking

There are certain products available that, although not as invasive as actually accessing an individual’s social media account, can still provide an employer with a vast amount of personal information about that individual.

These products scan the internet and social networking sites to find and collect information on the individual in question. One such product available is Social Source.

This software enables an employer to put together a list of basic information about an individual which the system will then use to scan social networking profiles. One example would be to search out an individual’s LinkedIn profile so that the employer can study their previous employment history.

Some companies are also using their company members as ‘Facebook friends’ to track an individual’s activity online.

The bottom line

As well as individuals feeling obligated to waive their rights to personal privacy one thing that perhaps employers haven’t taken into consideration is the fact that many individuals take on different identities when talking and posting on social media sites and the identities they use online may not be a true reflection of who they are or how they conduct themselves in the real world.

This form of ‘cyber’ vetting seems neither particularly practical nor particularly ethical and employers who don’t tread extremely carefully may find that any advantages or perceived risk reduction from seeking access may be heavily outweighed by legal risk and financial penalty.

What is Internet law?

Internet law (also called cyber law or e-commerce law) covers a broad range of aspects from selling products online to businesses which sole existence is on the Internet. The difficulty lies in the unique and international nature of the Internet, which means that it is difficult, in practical terms to apply national laws, if for example, a website is registered or hosted in a different jurisdiction.

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk published for a number of years defamatory content about solicitors. Even the Law Society, let alone the many solicitors who were aggrieved by this site, had great difficulty getting the site taken down. As the site had a lot of traffic (and is still prominent in search results in google when you search “solicitors” this indicates just how troublesome and complex this area of law can be. A number of copycat sites have emerged which seek to leverage the traffic also.

The significance of Internet law

Internet law is a relatively new area, which is not yet highly regulated but constantly and rapidly developing. The importance of Internet cannot be underestimated for the marketing and existence of most businesses.

Online privacy and data protection

Data protection laws in the UK also apply to the online privacy. Every website should have a detailed privacy policy explaining what data is collected and what are the purposes of such collection, how is the personal information protected and who is it disclosed to.

What information is personal?

It is any information, which can identify an individual: their name, date of birth, address, bank account number etc. Personal data must be processed (used or disclosed) fairly and lawfully, be kept up to date and only as long as needed for a specified purpose.

What is sensitive personal data?

It is data relating to the users’ religion or believes, race, health or criminal offences. It must be processed only with the user’s  ‘explicit consent’.

Cookies

The term cookie describes a message in text file send from the server to the browser. The purpose of cookies is to collect necessary data from users and prepare personalised web pages for them. The data can contain information such as recent Google search by a user.

The law regarding cookies has changed in the UK with the effect from 26^th May 2011. The new regulations state that the website operator must obtain the users’ express consent before gaining access to information or storing it. The Internet users must be provided clear and complete information about the purpose for gaining access to their data. The users’ consent is not required for cookies necessary to enable the user the requested information (such as remembering the contents of the online shopping cart before completing the purchase).

Internet defamation

Defamation is an infringement of protection to someone’s reputation. It can occur as a libel in a permanent form if it is printed, recorded or transmitted (this includes Internet transmission) or slander by a word of mouth or some other unrecorded means.

The defamatory statement needs to be false and communicated to others. If the statement is true it is not defamatory as truth is one of the defences to defamation. A defamatory statement is intended to lower someone’s reputation or estimation in the eyes of the society. Examples of defamatory statements could include allegations of immoral or criminal conduct, professional incompetence etc.

Publication rule

A ‘publication’ occurs every time the defamatory statement is accessed. The Internet brings another layer of complication to the defamation proceedings and the publication rule. Every ‘hit’ on a website creates a new publication which can also be accessed through the Internet archive. Because of the wide accessibility of the Internet and the amount of Internet users access to a defamatory statement is easier than if it was printed in a newspaper or a book and chances of the statement being read online are arguably higher than ever before.

ISPs

In relation to the Internet libel, the responsibility for transmitting the defamatory material can sometimes be transferred to the Internet Service Providers (ISP) unless they can show that:

• They transmitted the information on behalf of the Internet user (‘mere conduit’),

• They were merely hosting it on a website, or

• They were holding localised copies of a particular website on their server for a quicker download or access by their users (‘caching’)

Reputation management

In light of the accessibility of the Internet and ease of posting defamatory statements about an individual or a business, reputation management is a growing service offered online. Many employers do an Internet search on potential employees as well as clients on potential business partners or service providers. The use of social media and Internet search engines now includes gathering information in order to establish if an individual or a business is the right one and what their history is. Reputation management deals with administration of any negative information (or Internet listings) by bringing up the positive one and positioning it above the unflattering statements or images.

Use of the Internet by employees

The possibilities provided by Internet access are endless: information, research, entertainment, use of social media etc. To prevent an employee from wasting their time in the workplace by playing online games, watching videos online or reading articles unrelated to their duties employers implement Internet usage policies. To block or monitor employees’ Internet usage employers must bear in mind legal and ethical rules surrounding such control. An employee must be aware of the Internet usage policy existence and be informed of the rules (such as blocking of certain websites).