The Commissioner said that European privacy rules are crystal clear: a person’s information can only be used with their prior consent. Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID), the smart chips integrated in products such as electronic bus passes to send radio signals, would only realise their economic potential if they are used by the consumer and not on the consumer. “No European should carry a chip in one of their possessions without being informed precisely what they are used for, with the choice to remove or switch it off at any time.” The Commissioner also called on social networking companies to reinforce privacy protection online, particularly the profiles of minors, which must be private by default and unavailable to internet search engines. Mrs Reding asks “do we not cross the border of the acceptable when, for example, the pictures of the Winnenden school shooting victims in Germany are used by commercial publications just to increase sales?” The European Commission has already called on social networking sites to deal with minors’ profiles carefully, by means of self-regulation. The Commissioner warned that the EU would take action where Member States fail to implement EU rules ensuring privacy and the need for a person’s consent before processing his or her personal data.

Regarding behavioural advertisement systems that monitor internet users’ web browsing to better target them with advertisements, “we cannot…have all our exchanges monitored, surveyed and stored in exchange for a promise of ‘more relevant’ advertising”. Earlier this week the European Commission launched proceedings against the UK concerning this online advertising technology developed by UK based Phorm, tested by BT and cleared by the authorities. The current UK law allows internet traffic to be intercepted if the company doing the intercepting believes that it has consent. “We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of EU rules on the confidentiality of communications”. The Home Office said that it would respond to these proceedings in due course.

Sport and the law used to be strangers, with sports being run according to their own rules and regulations. Problems and disputes, on or off the playing field, were settled by the appropriate governing body. This is no longer always so, as many disputes are resolved by court cases, affecting those who participate in or administer sport. Ian Hewitt, a sports law barrister and former Freshfields partner, as well as being a member of the management committee of the Wimbledon Championships and helping in the formation of the Premier League, has brought together some of the most important and readable cases in Sporting Justice — 101 Sporting Encounters with the Law (Sportsbooks). There is a star-studded cast. Eric Cantona’s kung-fu kick against the Crystal Palace supporter Matthew Simmons, for example, led to a charge of criminal assault and a jail sentence of two weeks (later reduced to 120 hours of community service). Other on field reckless tackles and punches have resulted in convictions. Bruce Grobbelaar’s occasionally eccentric performance in goal for Liverpool resulted in an eight-week trial for match fixing. He was acquitted but the judge was less than complimentary about his behaviour. Elsewhere champion jockey Kieren Fallon was acquitted of corruption, and South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje found guilty of it. An amateur rugby referee who was successfully sued for allowing a scrum to collapse, injuring a player, and an upset Leicester soccer fan who sued a referee for shock suffered as a result of the official’s penalty decision in the last minute of extra time in an FA Cup tie, are examples of the not so famous involved when sport has rubbed up against the law.

Sport in civilised societies should be about playing by the rules and it is a shame that so many sports have been forced into the legal arena. Nevertheless the temptation to go down the legal route is fraught with danger. As the illustrious trio of Ian Botham, Allan Lamb and JPR Williams would ruefully agree, suing for libel is ruinously expensive if you don’t win.

• Who is communicating with whom?
• When and where are they communicating?
• What type of communication is it?”

In the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, took the lead in securing the Directive, which specifically places the provisions in the context of the EC’s “declaration condemning the terrorist attacks on London”. So far so good, but in implementing the requirements the Government is going way beyond terrorist offences. The catch-all provisions of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act mean that access to personal internet and text data will be available to all public bodies licensed under that Act. According to the ‘Guardian’ “this means that hundreds of public bodies including local councils, health authorities, the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Commission and even the education standards watchdog will be able to require telecommunications companies to hand over the personal data”.

Opposition spokesmen have condemned these requirements as a “snooper’s charter”, but the Home Office loftily declares “we consider that these measures are a proportionate interference with individuals’ right to privacy to ensure protection of the public.” The recent track record of public bodies in protecting sensitive data gives little cause for confidence.

If you want to contribute to the debate you have until 31 October. For the full text of the consultation paper, the EU Directive and the draft regulations see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-transposition?view=Binary