• 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.


  • 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.

« A cautionary DPA tale... | Main | Men are from Mars ... Lawyers are from Ancient Rome »


Francis Irving

I'm a bit confused here, why did they reject based on the information being already published (which simply isn't true - related information is published, but it isn't the same), rather than on commercial confidentiality?

Also, your last sentence beginning "Without parliamentary intervention" misses a subtlty. Related information is already theoretically public, as every mast required planning permission, which was granted. If we had proper structured planning data as a country, which we ought!, then it would be trivial to create a database of places where there is planning permission for masts.

Now of course that isn't quite the same thing, but it is similar. And it shows that data that you claim is the private property of the mobile phone company isn't as private as it at first appears.

The comments to this entry are closed.