The Australian reports that both Barnaby Joyce and Vikki Campion have lodged a complaint with the Australian Press Council against the Daily Telegraph for breaching their privacy.

At the time the story broke I thought that Campion had a fairly good chance of bringing a privacy action, even an injunction, against the Daily Telegraph relying on the equitable claim of misuse of private information.  The problem was the story ran, and ran and ran and with each lap of the oval the chances of bringing a successful claim diminishes.   Joyce’s conduct in giving interviews, then calling for privacy, then calling for privacy while giving interviews makes any claim in equity difficult.

It helps little that the media apply little analysis to the privacy issues involved in this situation.  Caroline Overington’s piece, Barnaby Joyce has made his son Sebastian public property, is breathtakingly foolish in the privacy rights of the Joyce-Campion’s child.  The article seems to be a half baked attempt at being ever so witty.  But there is a real dark side to it, one that reveals the breathtaking ignorance that many in the media have about basic privacy principles. Such as the statement:

The Joyce affair led to a new Ministerial Code of Conduct, a new rule, that prevents fraternisation between ministers and their staff.

It’s a political story, and he’s going to sell it.

It’s an ugly situation, unimaginable even a generation ago. And the ramifications for Sebastian are serious: this gives the media license to continue to report on the Joyce marriage, its breakdown, the new relationship, forevermore.

Like it or not, this child’s story is now public property. It’s been put up for sale, for the public’s consumption.

(emphasis added)

The child’s story, as in about the child rather than Joyce/Campion, is not public property.  It is a useful assertion for the media, but matters relating to the child are private, not political and certainly not public.

A complaint to the Press Council is of some moment to some media insiders.  It has no power to make orders compelling a member to do anything.  As it says:

The Council has no power to order compensation, fines or other financial sanctions. Where a complaint is upheld, the adjudication may also include a reprimand or censure, and may explicitly call for (but not require) apologies, retractions, corrections or other specified remedial action by the publisher. The Council may also call for specific measures to prevent recurrence of the type of breach in question.

For those who feel their privacy has been invaded and want real and substantial action the Press Council is of little use.  Unfortunately Read the rest of this entry »

ZdNet reports that the Commonwealth Government is still intent on legislating a power to access encrypted communications.  It will be fascinating to see how this is done legally. But legality is just the easy bit.  How does an Australian Government force an offshore entity to hand over its key or require Read the rest of this entry »

Facial recognition technology has long been touted as an effective tool in crime prevention and investigation as well as important for national security.  It is also touted as a way of improving efficiency in business and through social media.  Unfortunately the hype does not match the facts.  The algorithms and the quality of images that power facial recognition technology are often below par leading to many false positives.  The technology is also plagued by Read the rest of this entry »

The US Supreme Court in Byrd v United States, by a unanimous decision, restated that a strong belief in the privacy rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is an important decision on reasonable expectations of privacy but does not change the approach taken by the court on such issues.

FACTS

Read the rest of this entry »

The My Health Record program, providing a summary of one’s personal health information which can be shared with health providers, has not been a public policy success story. The pick up rate has been poor, with about 20% covered but according to the article in last year’s Conversation  Why aren’t more people using the My Health Record? it has only been used by a small percentage of consumers and not even to its intended capacity.  It is not popular with the likely users of the system, general practitioners and hospitals who regard it as not fit for purpose.  The privacy concerns regarding the My Health Records system have been long standing with articles highlighting the problems in 2015.  There is considerable distrust of the system and its vulnerability to data breaches. particularly given Read the rest of this entry »

The issue of consent is very significant under all data protection acts, not least the Australian Privacy Act 1988.  The UK Information Commissioner has released its guidance on consent.  While it is directly applicable to the obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) the contents will be of use in the Australian context.  Issues relating to consent are common across jurisdictions and the UK Information Commissioner’s guidances are generally Read the rest of this entry »

It is trite to say that Google lives off data.  That is the blood that flows through its veins and makes it the financial behemoth it is today.  It is not particularly discerning about how it gets data as Oracle has highlighted to the Australian in quite an impressive exclusive report We’re paying telcos to help Google spy on us.  Those using Android devices on smart phones have, according to Oracle, been transferring data to Google.  Worse still, telcos appear to be transferring data to Google for payment.  Google claims there has been consent, a truly vexed issue in privacy documents and permissions.  That side of the story needs more information. The story has also been covered by Read the rest of this entry »

Family Planning NSW has had its database of personal information of all clients who contacted it for the past two and a half years compromised by a cyber attack.

The nature of the data could not be more sensitive, and is defined as sensitive information in the Privacy Act, being not only health information but that which relates to contraception and fertility.  The nature of the breach was a bitcoin ransom demand Read the rest of this entry »

In Re Mossgreen Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] VSC 230 Robson J considered the application of the Australian Consumer Law as against the operation of the Corporations Act and powers of liquidators.

FACTS

The auction house operating through the entity Mossgreen Pty Ltd (in liq) (‘Mossgreen’) went into liquidation on 4 May 2018. Administrators had been appointed on 21 December 2017 [1].

As an auctioneer, Mossgreen held a large quantity of goods (the ‘consigned goods’) belonging to other people (the ‘consignors’) described as being:

(a) goods delivered to it to be auctioned, but which had not yet been auctioned;

(b) goods delivered for auction, but which had failed to sell and which were awaiting collection by their owners; and

(c) goods which, although successfully sold at auction, had not been collected by the successful bidders [2].

which were stored in  three warehouses [3].

Sobraz Pty Ltd (‘Sobraz’), the plaintiff, is the landlord of one of the warehouses, situated at 1 Torteval Place, Clayton [3].

The administrators’ stocktake of the goods cost in excess of $1 million [4]. The administrators sought to levy each consignor with the sum of $353.20 per lot as a condition for releasing the lot to the consignor, asserting an equitable lien [5]. The administrators application for Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Trade Commissioner announced that it had settled with BLU Products arising from a complaint that it had deceived its customers regarding its privacy policies and data security practices.

Under the decision BLU and any business that it controls will need to Read the rest of this entry »