February 13, 2017
Australia now has a form of mandatory data breach notification law.
The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 passed in the Senate today. The Greens, per Senator Ludlum attempted to amend the bill slightly. Without success.
Unless the Government fixes a date for commencement by Proclamation it will commence operation in 12 months from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent.
February 10, 2017
The Privacy (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 was introduced into the Senate last Wednesday, 8 February 2017. It was read a first time and will be placed on the Notice Paper for second reading debate at a time of the Government’s choosing. Given Read the rest of this entry »
February 8, 2017
Yesterday the second reading speeches of the Privacy Amendment (Notifable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 concluded and the Bill was read a third time. It is now heading to the Senate. Given the Opposition and the Xenaphon team are supporting Read the rest of this entry »
February 5, 2017
In Gucce Holdings Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited  FCA 12 the Federal Court considered whether a sale for undervalue, or at least a claim as such, was a basis for an offsetting claim (and what is required) as well as whether a special leave application was sufficient to set aside a statutory demand.
Gucce Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 099 191 714) filed an application, , with an affidavit of Tina Michelle Bazzo, director of Gucce,, on 29 December 2015 pursuant to s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001to set aside a statutory demand made by the Bank of Queensland Limited.
Bazzo stated that Read the rest of this entry »
February 2, 2017
Telstra had a good start to the year with a thumping victory over the Privacy Commissioner in the Federal Court in Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation in January. It was a big win for Telstra and a big loss for the Privacy Commissioner. It is a disaster for the Privacy Act. In the digital space it has gutted the Act. Given Read the rest of this entry »
January 9, 2017
Sometimes a data breach is just the beginning of a company’s problems. As reported in ESEA hacked, 1.5 million records leaked after alleged failed extortion attempt the theft of personal information can be used to make extortion demands. As E Sports Entertainment Association discovered correctly Read the rest of this entry »
January 7, 2017
State governments have been enthusiastic about criminalising surreptitious photography of a sexual nature, in response to the questionable practice of upskirting (taking photographs from shoes or ground level of women’s’ underwear) and revenge porn, the posting on-line of naked or intimate photographs by a spurned ex partner. The use of this legislation is reported on in Doctor fined for filming men in shower, where the accused engaged in utterly appalling behaviour in filming men showering in public bathrooms in Brisbane. The article provides:
Read the rest of this entry »
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“the NIST”) provides a valuable resource Read the rest of this entry »
December 30, 2016
Early in his presidency, in 2009, President Obama gave sage advice to teenagers about putting their personal information on line. In his own way he repeated the modern truism “what goes on line stays on line”. Put another way, the internet is forever and that includes pictures posted on line. In Australia the right to be forgotten is but a dream held mostly in academic circles.
The Conversation in Think again before you post online those pics of your kids returns to the theme of posting personal information on line, but this time regarding those of children. Putting aside Read the rest of this entry »
December 27, 2016
The privacy problems with drones has long been recognised. I have posted on it regularly (here, here, here, here and here just for a few examples). The Australian has reported in Sharp rise in drone sales ramps up pressure to protect privacy on the Federal Government that the Federal Government has yet again eschewed a strong recommendation to increase privacy protections, in the form of a civil cause of action for breach of privacy. It is a retrograde step. It makes little policy sense and Read the rest of this entry »