The Economist has a published a fantastic article titled I spy, with my big eye on CCTV and facial recognition technology and the ever present associated privacy issues.

It provides:

WELCOME to China, the land of video surveillance. Guangdong province boasts over 1m cameras. In 2010 the city of Chongqing, governed by the now-disgraced Bo Xilai, ordered 500,000. Other provinces have hundreds of thousands, according to Human Rights in China, an NGO. Video surveillance constitutes over half the country’s huge security industry, and is expected to reach 500 billion yuan ($79 billion) in 2015. China will soon overtake Britain, with around 3m cameras, as the capital of video surveillance.

Yet China is far from alone. In many democracies surveillance cameras are multiplying, too. And face-recognition technology is proving a wonder tool for both governments and marketers.

A jail in Alabama uses it to Read the rest of this entry »

The Privacy Commissioner has released media statement announcing that the New Zealand Government will update the Privacy Act.

The press release provides:

“Things have changed enormously since the Privacy Act was passed nearly twenty years ago,” said Ms Shroff. “Privacy is as important to people as it’s ever been. But the Act doesn’t always give people the protection they expect and need, particularly in the context of modern technology. And it needs to do more to support businesses.

“The need for reform is urgent. We Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Attorney General announced a reference to the ALRC for an inquiryt into the operation of copyright exceptions for public comment. The draft terms of reference are found here. The submissions close on 27 April 2012.

The press release provides:

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the ALRC will consider whether the exceptions in the Federal Copyright Act are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.

The draft terms of reference reflect the fact that technology is constantly evolving and testing the boundaries of copyright law    Ms Roxon said.

In our fast changing, technologically driven world, it important to ensure our copyright laws are keeping pace with change and able to respond to future challenges.

We want to ensure this review Read the rest of this entry »

A very interesting article in the Fairfax Press today about Google and others loosening restrictuions on the use of material. In Web giants loosen fine print to allow government ‘fishing expeditions’ for your data David Vaile is interviewed about this situation.  The story provides:

A loosening of words Read the rest of this entry »

The Attorney General has released a discussion paper on the review of Australian Contract Law.  The paper is found here.

The questions posed in the paper are:

Question 1

What are the main problems Read the rest of this entry »

UQ undertook a national telephone survey conducted with 1106 adults across Australia between November 17 and December 14, 2011. Reported data was proportionally weighted to adjust for design (chance of selection), contact opportunities (mobile only, landline or both) and demographics (gender, age, education and state)

The survey found that Australians have a high level of internet use but are wary of websites that collect too much information about their visitors.

More than 90 per cent of the survey’s respondents supported regulations that would allow them to control the capture and use of their personal information online and they would like companies to be legally required to notify people at the time when they are collecting personal information; to provide users with the ability to “opt out” of having their information collected; and to allow users to request their personal information be deleted.

The survey also found that Australians also overwhelmingly support the creation of a legal right to privacy – a measure recommended Read the rest of this entry »

In G and Parking Services Organisation [2011] AICmrCN 1 the Commissioner considered a complaint in the context of NPP 1.1, requiring organisations to only collect personal information if the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities, NPP 1.2, that an organisation must collect personal information only by lawful and fair means an not in an unreasonably intrusive way, and NPP 4.2, that an organisation must take reasonable steps to destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if it is no longer needed for any purpose.

FACTS

The complainant alleged that a parking services organisation had no reason to collect personal information and they wanted the organisation to destroy the information.  The parking services organisation had a short business relationship with the complainant and believed it was owed money from that relationship. To pursue the debt, the organisation obtained a court subpoena for records held by a state government department. These records contained the complainant’s personal information, relating to the complainant.

The complainant alleged there was a mistake in the organisation’s internal processes, and the complainant was not in debt to the organisation. On that basis, the complainant did not consider it necessary for the organisation to collect their personal information and did not want the organisation to hold information.

DECISION

The  organisation argued Read the rest of this entry »

In H and Registered Club [2011] AICmrCN 2 the Commissioner made a determination involving NPP 1.1, whereby an organisation must not collect an individual’s personal information, unless that information is necessary for one of more if its functions or activities, 1.3, at or before the time an organisation collects an individual’s personal information it must take reasonable steps to ensure an individual is aware of a number of factors, including the purposes for which the information is collected, and 4.2, an organisation must take reasonable steps to protect the personal information it holds from misuse and loss and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.

FACTS

The complainant alleged that a registered club interfered with his/her privacy by scanning his/her driver licence and, in doing so, recording unnecessary information.  While the complainant conceded that the club was required to collect their name, address and signature he/she considered the collection of the other information on the licence, including their date of birth, driver’s licence number, driver’s licence type and photograph to be unnecessary.

DECISION

As part of the conciliation process, the complainant Read the rest of this entry »

Acting Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Dr Anthony Bendall, today released an Information Sheet on Surveillance and privacy for organisations regulated by the Victorian Information Privacy Act 2000.

The Information sheet provides (without footnotes):