BCL’s Julian Hayes and Andrew Watson’s article ‘’Preparing for the worst but operating at our best – Reform of the NIS Regulations’’ has been published by The Barrister. In the article they discuss the regulations and look into the challenges for the reforms in the face of increased online threats.
With cybercrime rates doubling since 2019, and ransomware tripling since 2020, the UK government is seeking to bolster the nation’s cyber defences, publishing the National Cyber Strategy 2022 and enhancing the four-year-old Network and Information Systems Regulations (‘NIS Regulations’). BCL’s Julian Hayes and Andrew Watson discuss the NIS regulations and look into the challenges for the reforms of the NIS regulations in the face of increased online threats.
BCL partner Michael Drury, senior associate Caroline Mair and legal assistant Andrew Watson’s article ‘Evidence Obtained by Hacking or Torture: Do Two Wrongs Ever Make a Right?’ has been published by Lawyer Monthly.
With the civil courts confirming they are content to allow parties to deploy as evidence the results of unlawful computer hacking, Michael Drury, Caroline Mair and Andrew Watson consider the issues including for similarly obtained evidence in the criminal courts.
BCL partner Julian Hayes and legal assistant Andrew Watson’s article examining the critical balance between human rights, privacy and the use of biometric technology by the police has been published in Police Professional.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (‘the Bill’)[1] is making its way through Parliament and is currently at the Report Stage of the House of Lords.[2] If enacted, the Bill will provide the statutory framework for certain public authorities to a) authorise a Covert Human Intelligence Source (‘CHIS’) and b) authorise a CHIS to commit what would otherwise be criminal conduct. Owing to its potential scope, the Bill has come under fire from several political parties and campaign groups, which described the Bill as ‘a licence for government agencies to authorise torture and murder.’[3] The Government meanwhile has stated that a ‘CHIS will never be given unlimited authority to commit any and all crimes.’[4] So why is this happening now and what does this mean?
Amid recent concerns reported by the BBC that some are taking advantage of the Government’s schemes to support businesses affected by coronavirus, what are the real risks? John Binns and Andrew Watson investigate.
Julian Hayes and Andrew Watson’s previously published article ‘Data protection – another COVID-19 casualty?‘ has now been picked up by the key industry titles, Euronews, Infosecurity, Data Protection Magazine, Open Access Government and Information Age.
With more than one third of the planet’s population currently under some form of COVID-19 related restriction, the wider impact of ‘lockdown’ is becoming apparent. In the UK alone, the wider human cost of this necessary measure has been staggering: two million routine NHS operations cancelled; close to one million applications for universal credit benefit in the final two weeks of March; and calls to a national domestic abuse helpline 49% above average. The global economic picture is equally bleak. The IMF calculates the world economy will shrink by 7% in 2020, with trade levels sinking dramatically and national borrowing set to rise to levels not seen in peacetime. In the face of such dire prospects, for a relaxation of lockdown have grown increasingly vocal. But with a vaccine still 12-18 months off, governments around the world are weighing the apparent trade-off between easing restrictions and maintaining public health.
On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment[1] in an eagerly awaited appeal by Morrisons Supermarket, ruling that it was not liable for the criminal acts of a rogue employee. The court’s unanimous decision will have data controllers everywhere breathing a sigh of relief.
