Phone Hacking vs. Super Injunctions – which is worse?

The recent arrests and charges brought by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service, against Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson shows the seriousness in which the law enforcement authorities are taking the alleged issue of phone hacking by the ‘late’ News of the World.

 A breach of privacy has previously been considered to have taken place in incidents concerning well-known footballers obtaining super injunctions to stop their extra marital dalliances from being published in the national media. However, the News of the World arrests shows that breaches of privacy can be so much more than civil breaches, turning  very easily in to criminal offences.

The charges levied against Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson involve conspiracy to hack peoples phones i.e. an agreement between them and others that this course of dealing would be undertaken.. It would appear therefore that the CPS considers these hacking incidents to have been pre-planned and not just off the cuff actions, undertaken to chase a big story. This case, whatever its outcome, should go some way to increasing the way in which the right to privacy is considered in the social sphere, and the way it is viewed by the public i.e. not simply a means to gag the press via a super injunction.

We at Bains Cohen have acted for celebrities who have had their private photos published online, rock stars who have had their life works ripped off by unscrupulous family members in books claiming to be ‘memoirs’, and those involved in the sports and media industry in maintaining their right to privacy. In the same breath we have also acted for persons who have had their phones hacked, their computers invaded by intrusive information gathering viruses, and their homes bugged.

Our clients would say they are both as equally as important as each other and we would agree.

However, it cannot help but be noticed that the possible reason that Ms. Brookes and Mr Coulson have been charged, is the same reason a footballer’s injunction gets so much interest, the fact that they are in the public light.

In truth, I hope that the Police take more attention of the ordinary person who has to suffer similar such breaches of privacy, now that these charges have been levied against Mr Coulson and Ms Brookes. However, I also hope that they do not end up being scapegoats, sacrificed to shift social consciousness.

John Spyrou

Media Law Expert

Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP

How does Google, the world’s biggest internet company, decide what stays online and what gets taken down? Why, just look at their terms of service of course.

Merely typing the word ‘scam’ into Google will give you no less than 218,000,000 results. Now, the normal internet user will most likely believe that 50-60% of these are bonafide, with the other 40% being disregarded as nonsensical rubbish.

However, when an honest company gets labelled with the term ‘scam’ on Google, this will be seen by millions of internet users searching the word ‘scam’ within a mere one fifth of a second from the moment of that user typing in that search term into the Google search engine. The consequences of this would be immediate and could be disastrous and destructive for any business. But how does Google decide what should actually stay online and what is rubbish?

Google recently released their transparency report for 2011, detailing how many times they were asked to remove something from the internet. In the UK there were 1,455 requests: Google complied with 931 of them, from July – December 2011.  It is interesting to note that Google did not comply with all of the requests that had been made, and this is because there is  a specific criterion that Google’s team of analysts have to apply and satisfy, before they will even take a complaint about offensive material seriously.

Google tells us that the biggest issue it takes into account is that of narrowness; is the issue narrow enough for them to be able to actually help with? Whilst this may sound an easy enough hurdle to cross, in many cases the issue is so wide and so complex that it cannot be narrowed down. In these cases, Google does not help (ask the 524 users making removal requests that Google rejected). A specific example of this would be a website alleging a director had committed fraud in his role in a company. If the offending material has spread onto numerous websites, with many comments giving the matter apparent credibility and even adding in more defamatory allegations.In this instance, Google are likely to take the opinion that the matter is not narrow enough for them to help with, and so will duly reject a removal request. 

There is no doubt  that Google may be trying to deal with these requests responsibly, and we at Bains Cohen have spent many years building up our relationship of trust with Google, through written requests and Court proceedings. In fact, we could probably recite the Google terms of service from memory. Being able to inform Google that specific content breaches their terms of service is really, I believe, how they decide what stays online. After all, Google are there to protect themselves, hence why they have the terms of service in the first place.

 If you are able to properly articulate to Google why the offensive online material breaches their terms of service, with valid reference to local and international applicable law, then you have the best chance of having the offending content removed.

Luckily we at Bains Cohen are able to articulate this in a way that Google appreciates and generally complies with. Google is just one internet company that we have such a relationship with, there are many others and if a web site contains offensive material then it is most likely we can help you in having it removed. Please feel free to give us a call on 0208-252-7373 and we will be happy to assist you.  

John Spyrou

Associate Solicitor

Internet Law

Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP

The New Stalking Bill and National Stalking Day @ The House of Lords

The New Stalking Bill and National Stalking Day @ The House of Lords

As many of you know Wednesday 18 April 2012 was National Stalking Day.

I had the privilege of being invited to speak at the National Stalking Day Event at the House of Lords, in conjunction with Dr Carsten Maple of The National Centre for Cyberstalking Research.  I was in the distinguished company of Baroness Brinton, who chaired this event and several other Members of Parliament, members of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Law Enforcement Personnel and other Peers of the Realm.

Cyberstalking is an issue very close to my heart, given the current plight of our client Ms. Nicola Brookes, against consistent online harassment and stalking that she is suffering via the Facebook Social Networking Website. What did she do to attract such hostile attention, you may ask?  Well, she made an innocent remark of support on the Facebook Group of X-Factor contestant Frankie Cocozza.  Bains Cohen made the decision to act for Nicola on a pro bono basis to try and bring these offenders to justice, because the police did not take her matter any further.  The current stage in the proceedings involves an application being made for an injunction from the High Court to compel Facebook to release the IP addresses of the posters of this information, in the hope of tracing the identity of the offenders and bring them to justice by means of a private prosecution.  This will be the first ever private prosecution of its kind in the UK.

My speech at the Lords was focused on the fact that Cyberstalking is an inherent and serious problem. It is no longer bubbling beneath the surface affecting ‘geeky teenagers’ who spend all day ‘tweeting, ‘checking in’ or ‘updating their status.’ It is here, looking us fully in the face, and the police are not equipped, with the technical know-how or personnel to be able to help people suffering from it. The truth of the matter is that Nicola should not have to embark on a private prosecution; a criminal offence has been committed and the police should be dealing with this.  The cost of legal and court fees alone would be a huge deterrent to many people being harassed and stalked online in this way and there are many people being left to suffer this horrendous crime on their own.  I and my firm could not allow this to happen for Nicola. Nicola was turned away by the police and told simply to get in touch with Facebook herself.  Her stalking has now got to the stage where the trolls have managed to obtain her personal details and they have even posted her home address online.  What will be their next move?

A representative survey of the UK, was commissioned by Bains Cohen into the extent of Cyberstalking, the results of which were astounding – over 1000 16-40 year olds were surveyed and over half – 53% to be precise, admitted that they had received some form of abusive electronic communication.  However, what then followed was an extraordinary statistic of only 14 % actually reporting the matter to the police as they felt no confidence in them – a staggering figure of almost 80% felt that the police would not take their matter seriously - precisely what was found in the Nicola Brookes matter.  Taking stock whilst delivering my speech at the Lords, many officers were rather downcast and even approached me afterwards, pledging their support and making promises of helping to track Nicola’s trolls. One officer went to the extent of saying how embarrassed he felt during my speech as he could obtain IP addresses with ease under RIPA (The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) something that my firm will have to make an application at the High Court for, and then convince a Judge as to the merits of Nicola’s case, and when the relevant order is obtained, serve it on Facebook and wait for their response.  Despite our communications with the police after this event, there is sadly, nothing the police have done to take Nicola’s matter any further.

We often hear about celebrities who have been stalked online, Richard Bacon, Liz McClarnon and even Baroness Sal Brinton herself. But this is not just a ‘celebrity crime’, this is happening every single day to everyday normal people and it must be stopped, otherwise we will see more cases like Megan Meier and Amanda Cummings, who committed suicide in the United States as a result of abusive online messages, but the next cases will be at our front door, unless we do something about it now, and I am hopeful that the new Stalking Bill and cases like Nicola’s will assist in preventing this intrusive and damaging crime.

Rupinder Bains – Senior Partner at Specialist Internet Law Firm Bains Cohen LLP

Look out for my next post that explains more about the Bains Cohen Cyberstalking Survey Results, which will illustrate just how much of an issue this is.

Is it possible to remove defamatory content from Google?

Online Defamation Blog « Internet Law Expert

The simple answer to the question ‘is it is possible to remove defamatory content from Google search results’ is that, yes, it is possible and here is how to do it. Read More on Internet Law Expert blog

Good News For Victims Of Online Defamation, Internet Reputation Attacks And Online Trolling

Good News For Victims Of Online Defamation, Internet Reputation Attacks And Online Trolling

Yair Cohen, a partners with the law firm Bains Cohen explains that the speed by which, you can have web pages listed on first pages of Google could bring immediate and substantial amount of money to your business, literally overnight. The same speed however that leads to this immediate success could cause complete devastation to business owners who find that their reputation has been tarnished almost overnight.

The good news however, is that...Read more on Internet Harassment

Bains Cohen Solicitors Blog: Preview "New Stalking Bill To Stop Internet Stalking, Online Harassment and Social Networking Bullying « Internet Law Expert"

Bains Cohen Solicitors Blog: Preview "How Can Stalking Bill Stop Internet Stalking, Online Harassment and Social Networking Bullying? « Internet Law Expert":

The new Stalking Bill should make access to identifying details of internet users who are engaged in online stalking, harassment and bullying much easier than it is at the moment.

At present, the state of the internet is one of complete anarchy. Social networking sites, blogs, forums and discussion groups are attracting ‘online rioters’ of the worst kind who (quite rightly) believe that there are no consequences to their actions.
They hide behind a veil of anonymity knowing that it will be almost impossible (especially to a vulnerable victim) to ever smoke them out. Anarchy spreads fast, so it is not surprising that we are now seeing an increase in the number of victims of internet stalking , harassment and bullying. Read more on Internet Law Expert

The Legal Aspects Of The Conviction of Sean Duffy At Reading Magistrates Court « Internet Law Expert

The Conviction of Sean Duffy At Reading Magistrates Court « Internet Law Expert:

"This latest prosecution of Sean Duffy at Reading Magistrates Court may signal the beginning of a new line of prosecution by the police of internet related offences, which will be great news to tens of thousands UK victims of internet defamation and abuse, and in particular to those vulnerable victims who are not in a financial position to be able to afford expensive civil proceedings."

In a first case of its kind, Magistrates have jailed a man who posted abusive images to online memorials dedicated to dead children. The man was jailed for 18 weeks and was banned from participating in social networking for a period of five years.