Latest news with #DataProtectionAct
The National
2 days ago
- The National
Dundee call handler admits unlawfully sharing police data
Gary Moran, 40, appeared at Dundee Sheriff Court on Friday, where he plead guilty to four charges under the Data Protection Act. He also admitted one charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice. READ MORE: Man charged with attempted murder of police officer in Clydebank The offences took place while Moran was employed as a call handler in the Dundee Control Room. Over a period of nearly three years, between October 2021 and August 2024, he accessed police databases without a legitimate policing reason. During that time, he disclosed confidential information to third parties. Moran was dismissed from his position in Police Scotland following an unrelated disciplinary matter, prior to the conclusion of this court case. He is now due to be sentenced on Tuesday, September 9. Detective Superintendent Nathan Calderwood, from the Professional Standards department, condemned Moran's actions. He said: 'Gary Moran exploited his position as a call handler by accessing police systems to view records he had no business purpose for seeing. 'He further breached values by passing sensitive information on to third parties.' READ MORE: Uniformed police pulled from Glasgow Pride over 'impartiality' concerns Calderwood stressed the importance of integrity in policing. 'Trust and confidence in police officers and staff is essential and people like Moran have no place in Police Scotland,' he said. 'Any officer or staff who fails to uphold the high standards we expect in policing will face the consequences.' He added that complaints against officers and staff who do not uphold Police Scotland's values will always be investigated.
STV News
2 days ago
- STV News
Police call handler unlawfully accessed records and disclosed personal information
A Dundee call handler unlawfully accessed police records and disclosed personal information. On Friday, Gary Moran admitted four charges under the Data Protection Act and one charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice at Dundee Sheriff Court. The 40-year-old accessed police records without legitimate policing purpose and disclosed personal information over a three year period between October 21 and August 2024. The crimes took place while he worked as a call handler in the Dundee Control Room. Moran was sacked from his role over a separate disciplinary matter, prior to the conclusion of the court case. He is due to be sentenced on Tuesday, September 9. Detective Superintendent Nathan Calderwood, Professional Standards, said: 'Gary Moran exploited his position as a call handler by accessing police systems to view records he had no business purpose for seeing. He further breached values by passing sensitive information on to third parties. 'Trust and confidence in police officers and staff is essential and people like Moran have no place in Police Scotland. Any officer or staff who fails to uphold the high standards we expect in policing will face the consequences. 'We will always investigate complaints against police officers and staff who do not uphold our values and standards.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Canada News.Net
6 days ago
- Business
- Canada News.Net
High Court backs TikTok's legal bid against Ireland's data watchdog
DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights. The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore. In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months. At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review. TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General. TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale. TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43. The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases. Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.
Malaysia Sun
6 days ago
- Business
- Malaysia Sun
Ireland's data watchdog faces court fight over TikTok penalty
DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights. The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore. In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months. At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review. TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General. TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale. TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43. The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases. Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.
The Journal
14-07-2025
- Business
- The Journal
TikTok given permission to challenge €530m fine over data transfers to China
SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the 'penal' €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site in May , for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530 million fine, the censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of 30 April 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court today on an ex-parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Advertisement In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are 'joint controllers' for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is 'the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision'. Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of 'administrative' fines of €485M and €45M 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution'. 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property,' TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
