Welcome

  • Naked Law is written by technology lawyers from Mills & Reeve. Our team is (mostly) based in Cambridge, England. We write about the latest legal and regulatory developments relating to information and communication technology, e-commerce, and privacy.

    Please send us an email or post a comment if you want to join in the discussions on Naked Law.

 Subscribe in a reader

Subscribe to Naked Law by email

Disclaimer

  • The information on this blog is not legal advice. You should not rely on it and we don't accept liability in connection with it. Please read our full disclaimer and let us know if you would like us to advise on any legal issue.

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

The nice polite free our bills campaign

Francis Irving has just pointed me in the direction of the new TheyWorkForYou.com/MySociety campaign "Free Our Bills". Whilst the technical details of what they're asking for won't necessarily grab lawyers immediately, some of the principles of open government and access to (legal) information should.

The campaign is essentially asking for new bills to be published in a way that would allow for more extensive manipulation and analysis by people like TheyWorkForYou. This might, for example, allow for publication of details of all changes to legislation made by particular MPs.

I can't claim to understand the costings in detail, but the campaign's argument is persuasive - and certainly equipping us all with a better understanding of the legislative process (and the involvement of our elected representatives in that process) must be a Good Thing.

Men are from Mars ... Lawyers are from Ancient Rome

I recently complained about lawyers' use of clumsy or archaic phrases in their drafting.  Soon after my post, I found myself providing a training session on drafting and negotiating IT contracts.  One of our co-presenters was covering basic drafting issues, including the need for clarity in contracts.  She stressed the need for us to avoid unnecessary uses of Latin - but confessed that she could not immediately think of an alternative for "mutatis mutandis".  This got me thinking.

Wikipedia lists over 200 Latin legal phrases and it seems that despite the Plain English Campaign’s best efforts and the principles of the Woolf reforms many of these are still prominent in legal documentation and amongst our learned friends.  I'm sure that there are always clearer ways of drafting or framing arguments that don’t involve legalease or sound unduly lawyerly.

Here are some of the those Latin phrases that are still sticking around, with possible alternatives in English:

  • Caveat emptor - the buyer must rely on his own inspection of the goods
  • Eiusdem generis - and other similar items
  • Inter alia - among other things
  • Mutatis mutandis - making the necessary changes (as a consequence of this act)
  • Pro bono - for free (does our modesty prevent us being so straightforward?!)
  • Prima facie - at first sight
  • Ultra vires - outside his/her authority

And here is a link to a great compendium of many I hope I never hear.

It has always struck me as particularly cumbersome and incongruous given the cutting edge subject matter of some of the contracts we work on to hark back to Latin words as if they contained some sort of magic.  Is there ever an excuse?

Help, my brain is exploding...

In 2000 the Stewart Report was commissioned, investigating the risks of mobile phone usage. Whilst it did not come to any firm conclusions, it did suggest that the levels of radio frequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and masts had the potential to have an adverse affect on human health.

OFCOM, the industry regulator for telecommunications, took this report fairly seriously. In particular they took account of one of the key recommendations of the Stewart Report, that the government set up a database of all mobile phone base-stations and masts. This resulted in a voluntary scheme, where mobile phone operators provided information to OFCOM which was compiled into a search interface called Sitefinder. Go on, click on it, it's really user friendly, and you can check if a mast is near you right now. OFCOM manage this service, but do not provide the underlying data to users.

On 11 January 2005, a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request was made to OFCOM for the underlying data in the sitefinder database in specified file formats. OFCOM replied on 27 January 2005, declining the request and citing the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 6(1)(b) (which apply here in harmony with the Freedom of Information Act), since the information is 'already publicly available and easily accessible in another form or format'. Following some further wrangling, they also refused to disclose the information because of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 12(5)(a) and (c), namely that they could refuse to disclose the information to the extent it would adversely affect 'international relations, defence, national security or public safety' (on the basis that it would reveal the locations of police/emergency services communications equipment) or due to 'intellectual property rights' (because the data belongs to the mobile phone operators).

The applicant did not accept this, and wrote to the Information Commissioner to ask them to review OFCOM's decision. In a detailed decision, the Information Commissioner upheld the applicant's request and dismissed OFCOM's arguments, ordering the data to be disclosed. This decision was subsequently endorsed by the Information Tribunal who upheld the Information Commissioner's judgment (albeit with some difference in reasoning).

OFCOM has reportedly decided to appeal this decision to the high court.

I must confess I'm with OFCOM on this one, despite being very much in favour of the transparency and availability of information. Some of their arguments seem relatively tenuous (prevention of terrorism being the most interesting) but their position is fairly strong overall.

As things currently stand, the public have a user friendly means to access information which belongs to the mobile phone operators. They can check if a mobile phone mast is near them, and act accordingly. The only reason I can think why anyone would want a complete dataset would be either to make some commercial gain (e.g. spotting gaps in the mobile phone network) or to use against mobile phone companies. Without parliamentary intervention, mobile phone companies shouldn't be required to provide information which can only harm their interests. Like or loathe your mobile phone company, that's just not fair.