October

On July 19, 2016, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Oe, published his Opinion on two joined cases relating to data retention requirements in the EU, C-203|15 and C-698|15. These cases were brought following the Court of Justice for the European Union 's (CJEU 's) decision in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which invalidated Directive 2006|24|EC on data retention. The two cases, referred from courts in Sweden and the UK respectively, sought to establish whether a general obligation to retain data is compatible with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection under EU law. In his Opinion, the Advocate General stresses the need to find a balance between a nation 's need to effectively fight serious crime, such as terrorism, against individuals ' fundamental rights. The Advocate General found that a general obligation to retain data may be compatible with EU law, although any action from an EU Member State against the possibility of imposing such an obligation is subject to strict requirements. The national courts are responsible for determining whether or not such requirements are satisfied.

"Republic of Mauritius became the second non-European state - after Uruguay in 2013 - to ratify the Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, also known as ""Convention 108"", and its Additional Protocol, taking the total number of states parties to the treaty to 49.

The Privacy Commissioner of the Republic of Mauritius, Drudeisha Madhub, deposited the accession documents in the presence of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, During an international conference held in Strasbourg under the theme "Convention 108: from a European reality to a global treaty".

Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia have already been invited to accede to the treaty and will most likely be the next countries to become parties. The treaty will enter into force in respect of the Republic of Mauritius on 1 October 2016. ""Convention 108"" is the only existing international treaty which grants individuals the right to the protection of their personal data, aiming also to prevent any abuses which may accompany the processing of these data."

"Two recent studies claim that "ban the box" policies enacted around the country detrimentally affect the employment of young men of color who do not have a conviction record.

The nation cannot afford to turn back the clock on a decade of reform that has created significant job opportunities for people with records. Review of the studies leads to these top-line conclusions:
(1) The core problem raised by the studies is not ban-the-box but entrenched racism in the hiring process, which manifests as racial profiling of African Americans as ""criminals.""
(2) Ban-the-box is working, both by increasing employment opportunities for people with records and by changing employer attitudes toward hiring people with records.
(3) When closely scrutinized, the new studies do not support the conclusion that ban-the-box policies are responsible for the depressed hiring of African Americans.
(4) The studies highlight the need for a more robust policy response to both boost job opportunities for people with records and tackle race discrimination in the hiring process is not a repeal of ban-the-box laws."