March 16, 2014
The long awaited discussion paper into Invasions of Privacy is to be released on 19 March. It will be interesting to see what new perspectives it will provide on an issue so comprehensively covered in the ALRC’s 2008 report For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108). It is likely to recommend a statutory right of privacy, much as every Law Reform Commission has done when reviewing privacy issues in the last 30+ years, but also look at the patchy, inconsistent between jurisdictions, inadequate and sometimes obsolete surveillance legislation that exist at both a state and Commonwealth level. If the Commonwealth Government baulks at introducing a statutory right of privacy, which will have to be for non legal reasons, it can at least focus on reforming the surveillance regulation which is fast falling into disrepute.
On the surveillance question the Privacy Commissioner has Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy
|
Post a comment »
In Drones: Sky’s the limit for airborne snoopers the Age does a brief overview of the issues that the burgeoning use of drones raise (pardon the pun). Not a bad quick overview of the technological issues but nothing I haven’t covered in the last two years of postings on drones (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). A worthwhile contribution.
There is uncertainty of the number of drones are in use in Australia (or America) and who is operating them. Drones can be Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy, Privacy Articles
|
Post a comment »
March 14, 2014
It has long been suspected, and demonstrated in US academic journals, that the combination of metada and algorithms can identify individuals and be damaging personal privacy. In that context the attraction of police and security agencies requiring or wanting to require telcos and ISPs to store records, whether of phone numbers or browsing history is concerning. There have been a steady stream of stories throughout 2013, spartked by the Snowden revelations. The Australian Federal Police are seeking more powers to access metadata, as reported by the ABC in Australian Federal Police calls for more access to metadata to snare criminals. Without proper safeguards having a authorities accessing individual’s metadata without proper cause is a concern. The most recent attempt by authorities to store data is found in zdnet’s repoort What a croc: NT Police data retention proposal ‘overreach’.
It provides:
Northern Territory Police’s call for ISPs to be forced to retain their customers’ web browsing history for two years has been labelled as a massive overreach by Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy
|
Post a comment »
March 13, 2014
The amendments to the Privacy Act are one day old but the changes are already becoming apparent. At least in terms of disclosure of where data sent offshore is going. That is an obligation under the Australian Privacy Principles (the APPs), in particulars APP 1 and 8.
Itnews in Aussie blue-chips reveal extent of data offshoring has done a quick review based on disclosures to date. It is an excellent article. The United States leads the pack in terms of destination of data followed by United Kingdom, India and Phillipines (no doubt call centre and support service oriented). New Zealan , Singapore and Chine. The piece also shows how companies are interpreting the requirements set out in the APPs regarding disclosure with Coles being on the open side while Westfield and Holden being more opaque. Clearly this is a matter requiring consideration by the Privacy Commissioner in the short to medium term. If organisations and agencies feel Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, Privacy
|
Post a comment »
March 12, 2014
Today, 12 March 2014, the long-expected and patchily publicised amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 take effect.
The PM program has run a story on the changes in New privacy laws crack-down on personal data use. It provides:
MARK COLVIN: New privacy laws come into effect today in a major crack-down on those using our personal data.
Businesses are now compelled Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy
|
Post a comment »
March 11, 2014
For those following this site the existence of amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 is trite and the fact that they will take effect tomorrow is obvious and well known. The Privacy Commissioner has put out a media release to that effect with Privacy laws change tomorrow. Not Byronesque but clear and to the point as headings go. What more can you expect from a heading.
It relevantly provides:
Important changes to the Privacy Act 1988 commence on 12 March 2014.
The changes include Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, Privacy
|
Post a comment »
The Conversation is turning into quite an effective commentator on privacy law issues. In When data privacy goes missing, will the regulators hear it cry? on 7 March the issue is privacy and data breaches and, more importantly, what regulatory response is out there. As the author notes data breaches seem to becoming more common, almost ubiquitous and notification is made by external parties 70% of the time. In Australia there is no mandatory data breach notification laws. It is being a little too Polyannish to assume voluntary notification will take hold of the nations organisations and agencies. That is a serious flaw in privacy regulation.
The article also falls into the sceptical camp when it highlights the wording of the Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy
|
Post a comment »
Today the Privacy Commissioner found that Telstra breached the National Privacy Principles 4.1, 4.2 and 2.1 arising out of the leak of personal information of 15,775 customers. The Privacy Commissioner’s finding is found here. The ACMI also found Telstra breached the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code. It’s finding is found here.
The reportage has been long and loud. The Age report is found here at Telstra breaches privacy of thousands of customers, the ABC with Telstra fined after breaching privacy of 15,775 customers and itnews with Telstra breached Privacy Act by exposing user data with the Australian’s Telstra leak breached privacy law: reports.
The Privacy Commissioner’s decision, absent footnotes, provides:
Overview
On 24 May 2013, the Australian Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) opened an own motion investigation into Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). This was in response to media allegations that personal information of Telstra customers was accessible online, which Telstra confirmed.
The Commissioner’s investigation focused Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, General, Privacy
|
Post a comment »
March 10, 2014
One of the modern myths of American jurisprudence is the primary the Constitution has always given to the First Amendment. In that context the media has a significant, almost unassailable, defence when facing a claim of defamation from a public figure. It was not always thus. In fact pre 1964 US defamation law was not much different to that of its cousins across the lake in the UK.
It was the US Supreme Court decision of New York Times v Sullivan, 50 years ago on 9 March 1964, which elevated the First Amendment protections to its current position of primacy. That position has not been reduced, as some of the decisions of the Warren Court have been (such as the Miranda decision). If anything it has been bolstered.
The Atlantic covers the story of New York Times v Sullivan in Today Is the 50th Anniversary of the (Re-)Birth of the First Amendment. As usual a thoughtful and engrossing account of how the decision came about.
It provides:
On March 9, 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed a libel verdict against The New York Times in a case brought by Alabama officials who complained about a civil rights advertisement in the paper. The First Amendment, thankfully, hasn’t been the same since.
Posted in Defamation, Legal
|
Post a comment »
This Wednesday the amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 take effect. They should require a significant change to the manner in which privacy is regulated in Australia by the Privacy Commissioner. He has been given significant and varied enforcement powers. And the penalties for serious interferences with privacy, $340,000 for an individual and $1,700,000 for a company, and breaches of the Credit Reporting provisions of the Act (Part IIIA) are very significant. The question is, and has always been, how active and effective the regulator will be. Part of the problem in the past has been Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, Privacy
|
Post a comment »