February 13, 2016
The internet of things is changing the way children use their toys. Ten years ago toys were overwhelmingly self contained objects, even the electronic ones. The extent to which they were interactive was confined to basic voice recognition features and rudimentary command responses. Of course a huge number of toys remain “old school”; Lego, matchbox cars and the ubiquitous teddy bears. But many are now Read the rest of this entry »
February 9, 2016
There is a distinct subset of data breaches where the intention is to embarrass by posting personal information on line. It is particularly embarrassing Read the rest of this entry »
The Supreme Court, per Efthim As J, considered an application to set aside a statutory demand in Cato Brand Partners Pty Ltd v Air India Limited  VSC 28. The issue was bringing an application against a foreign corporate body and the application of foreign law in determining the applicable statute of limitations.
In December 2009 the plaintiff’s chairman, Kenneth Willis Cato, travelled to India in December 2009 and February, April and June 2010 for meetings with representatives of the defendant. An agreement was entered into on 2 June 2010 .
The plaintiff claims it was owed Read the rest of this entry »
February 8, 2016
The internet of things opens up particular data security and privacy issues. The more interaction between the device and its user the more opportunities for a breach by a hacker. And the usual entrepot is through the app. Often developed without any concept of privacy by design and with the Read the rest of this entry »
January 31, 2016
The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) in its report Big Data Threat Landscape and Good Practice Guide has signalled Read the rest of this entry »
Sometimes the figures are so staggering that one has to pause and ask, is that right? Or even possible?!?
One of those moments came Read the rest of this entry »
It is something of a myth that there are no privacy protections in the USA. At the Federal level there are protections but the regulations are narrow and sectorally focused. There is a permissiveness in the sale of data which undermines basic privacy protections.
At a state level however there are far greater privacy protective regulations. Often times when the Federal Government dawdles the States step in to fill the gaps. This is exemplified in New Mexico passing laws to clarify when police need a warrant to search phones and computers while the Vermont Senate has passed a bill to enhance electronic privacy. And now some States are legislating in unison, with the coordination of the ACLU, to enhance protections as reported in New privacy bills to hinder data collection could affect 100M Americans and Wired in 5 Things Congress Should Learn From New State Privacy Bills looks at what the States are doing to provide protections. The Wire article provides:
Read the rest of this entry »
January 26, 2016
On 14 January 2016 the Pew Research Center issued a very interesting report titled Privacy and Information Sharing. It debunks, or at least continues to debunk, the myth that most people are happy to compromise their privacy. A variation on the “There is no privacy, get over it” mantra used by those who would like there to be no effective privacy. At least in the commercial space.
The research makes clear that American’s do care about their privacy, (as the scenarios set out below attest) are more nuanced on where and when they would be prepared to let their personal information be disclosed and what annoys and worries them is what is done with their personal information after it has been collected. In that respect it is a universal concern. The research is not ground breaking. The concerns raised Read the rest of this entry »
January 24, 2016
In Locker Group Pty Ltd v HEA Australia Pty Ltd  VSC 752 the Victorian Supreme Court, per Randall AsJ, considered the authorities relating to the obligations to provide full disclosure, the failure to disclose a material fact and the consequences of not complying with an order in the service of an application resulting in late service. The Court made orders under the Civil Procedure Act relating to the very unfortunate conduct of Locker Group. The court also considered the scope of the power under the Civil Procedure Act in making costs orders encompassing costs incurred by liquidators.
On 16 April 2014 Australia Pressure Vessel Heads (2011) Pty Ltd, the Plaintiff, filed an originating process seeking to wind up HEA Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Company’) under s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’). On 14 May 2014 the plaintiff’s counsel appeared. There was no appearance for the Company. There were negotiations the result of which was that payment was expected within seven days. A further hearing was adjourned to 21 May 2014 . At that time the plaintiff’s counsel again appeared, advised that the plaintiff had been paid out and sought to be excused. Counsel for Locker Group Pty Ltd, a supporting creditor (‘Locker Group’), appeared and advised the Court that it wished to be substituted as plaintiff. At that time the Company had not filed a notice of appearance under r 2.9 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2013 and s 465C of the Corporations Act . Read the rest of this entry »
January 23, 2016
In Australia telcos tend to be frequent fliers when it comes to poor privacy practices and data breaches. And Telstra Read the rest of this entry »