The Indian government has told RIM, the Canadian manufaturers of BlackBerry mobile phones to either provide access to encryption or face a ban from 31 August onwards. The Indian government says the BES and messenger services pose a grave security concern.
India has one of the largest growing markets for BlackBerry users.
The Scottish golfer and Ryder Cup captain, Colin Montgomerie, has successfully won a court injunction against details of his private life being exposed. Montgomerie won the order against a tabloid newspaper in July, but the details have only recently come to light. A settlement between the two parties was reached out of court and there is no evidence that the allegations were true. The order came after reports that Montgomerie’s second marriage was in trouble. The golfer is the latest celebrity to use a gagging order to prevent articles about their private life being published.
Over at Liberty Central, David Allen Green asks if corporate bodies should be able to protect their reputations in the same way as individuals can.
Companies have reputations, and of course in a commercial environment these reputations are important. But companies already have a wide range of legal means to protect their brand and to prevent unfair competition. In terms of intellectual property, companies can and do use the law of trademarks, passing off and copyright to prevent inappropriate and damaging attacks on its brand and its products. There is also the right to sue for malicious falsehoods. And since the introduction in 2008 of the business protection from misleading marketing regulations, companies also have a range of protections from other commercial actors making misleading statements, especially in comparative and similar targeted advertising.
It is rather difficult to see what legitimate purpose the right of a company to sue and – crucially – threaten to sue for libel now has in our society. A brief look at cases where companies have sued individuals for libel – the McLibel litigation, British Chiropractic Association v Dr Simon Singh, General Electric Healthcare v Professor Henrik Thomsen and the still ongoing case of NMT v Dr Peter Wilmshurst – suggests that whatever the general arguments for allowing companies to sue for libel, it is a legal weapon that can be used in unattractive ways and against the public interest.
Read the rest here
Following Rwanda’s election-related crackdown on the independent media, the UK is finally starting to wise up, says Lars Waldorf
(more…)