The DCMS pubished this image to clarify the definition of “a relevant published” under proposals published in early 2013.
Nick Booth left a Press Recognition Panel consultation under the impression that non profit hyperlocals were going to be exposed by the new regulation system. Then legal experts suggested he’d got it wrong. So which is it? In a special post cross-published from Podnosh, Nick tries to tease out a complex law and ask: ‘when someone sues now, who pays?’.
Last week I spent a couple of hours at a consultation in Birmingham run by the Press Recognition Panel, which is the regulator set up to oversee the creation of (a?) new press regulator(s) following the Leveson Inquiry and the Royal Charter. (I know this has already got a bit “what?”, but stick with me.)
I’m worried about 1. because of 2. And tonight’s Dispatches: Watching the Detectives does a particularly good job of illustrating why. It is “the ease and extent to which the unregulated private investigation industry is willing to acquire personal data for a price” – not just from the police services, but the health services, benefits system, and other bodies, including commercial ones such as communications service providers (for an illustration of the data security of private companies, witness the Information Commissioner’s Office targeting them after a series of data protection breaches).
If you’re a journalist, student journalist or blogger with any interest in protecting your sources, you should be watching the Communications Data Bill closely and understanding how it affects your job.