Data retention in the UK: Pragmatic and proportionate,or a step too far?

On 6 April 2009 new legislation came into force, for the first time putting Internet service providers' duty to retain significant amounts of data (relating to customers' email and Internet usage) on a compulsory, as opposed to a voluntary footing. It is a topic which has provoked intense protest from the privacy lobby and fuelled months of “Big Brother” headlines in the press. For the industry it raises operational challenges – how to facilitate storage and retrieval of colossal amounts of data. In this article we consider the policy background to the regime, the detail of the UK implementation and the practical implications for communications service providers. We weigh up the privacy and human rights concerns against the business case put forward by the Government. We also examine the Government's proposals – announced at the end of April – to significantly extend and “future proof” this regime in the form of its Intercept Modernisation Programme.     

'The good that is interred in their bones': are there property rights in the child?

Bone marrow donation between siblings is a common medical procedure. In some instances, the donor will be a young child incapable of providing either consent or assent, and the intervention is made lawful through the consent of the parent(s). Although a number of justifications have been formulated to cover this act with legitimacy, these fail to describe accurately the transaction that takes place. In the absence of the child authorising his parents to act as his proxy, it is unclear why parental consent is sufficient to permit the redistribution of his biological wealth. Instead, where the donor is such a young child, the whole procedure may be construed as the appropriation of bodily tissue from one unconsenting human and its conveyance to a third, albeit related, party. This paper argues that if the parentally authorised transfer of biological material from an unconsenting human to another is legally permissible, it must be on the basis of an implicitly acknowledged property right in the child.