In November 2012 a consultant psychiatrist lost a bag while riding home. Disappointing and frustrating no doubt but in and of itself normally nothing dramatic there. Except if the bag contained sensitive personal data. A consultant psychiatrist working for the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board did just that. And for these troubles it has been the subject to an undertaking from the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The press release provides:
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued Cardiff and Vale University Health Board with an undertaking following a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The Applicant, (“Chan”) applied under sections 471B, 477(2B) and 477(6) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (the Act) for a series of orders including a declaration that, on 13 August 2013, she and the First Respondent (“Four C Realty”) entered into a binding and enforceable contract for her to purchase its business assets of Four C Realty. The Respondents submitted that no binding contract existed on 13 August 2013 and, alternatively, if a binding contract did exist, then Chan was required to provide security for what has been described as “the indemnity” [2].
Equilibrium has a sole director and shareholder, Mr Justin Brown (“Brown”). Bluestone has a sole director and a shareholder, Mr Lance Hodgkinson (“Hodgkinson”) [4]. Brown & Hodgkinson were property developers involved in a number of substantial property developments [4] – [5]. In late 2005 Brown wanted to sell out of a development [6] and at a meeting convened to discuss this with Hodgkinson he wrote on a single sheet of paper what arrangements would effect this outcome. Both then signed the document. Brown claimed the document was an enforceable agreement. Some of the payments contemplated by the document (totalling $600,000) Read the rest of this entry »
The amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) take effect on 12 March 2014. The Privacy Commissioner will then have significant powers to conduct own motion investigations and institute civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court. The Guidelines being developed by the Privacy Commisioner’s office will no doubt be persuasive. Guidelines are not binding rules (but with a few notable exceptions, see section 16B. That has been made clear with the amendments (see section 6(3). The Privacy Commissioner will develop guidelines which will establish the criteria on which a decision to pursue a civil penalty will be made. But it will be the Federal Court which will be considering the meaning of words, the scope and operation of privacy policies and codes and the operation of the APPs. The jurisprudence in Australia in the privacy law area is quite sparse. Not surprising given the relative ineffectiveness of the legislation. That may change with the new powers available to the Privacy Commissioner. It will be prudent to consider how other jurisdictions have approached privacy issues and have developed their jurisprudence. Obviously they may be of use and even persuasive but definitely not binding.
In that vein it is relevant to have regard to the case notes recently published by the New Zealand Privacy Commissioners. They are found here.
The court of appeal, per Hansen and Tate JJA, considered the operation of default notices, service and the doctrine of fair notice in Wilde & Anor v Morgan & Ors [2013] VSCA 250. It was an appeal from a decision of AsJ Derhham in Re: Art Pacific Pty Ltd; Wilde v Morgan & Ors [2013] VSC 330 (27 June 2013).
FACTS
The applicants sought orders, set out at [1], that:
(1) the appointment of the first and second respondents as agents for the third respondent by Deed of Appointment of Agents for Mortgagee in Possession dated 23 October 2012 (the Deed) under a mortgage of land between the second applicant and the third respondent was invalid;
(2) further or alternatively, the first and second respondents entry into possession or assumption of control of the land of the second applicant pursuant to the Deed was invalid.
The Fairfax press and the ABC have reported on the disturbing practice of doctors and nurses using cameras to take photos of their handiwork without getting consent of their patients or properly protecting the photos.
The ABC report provides:
ELIZABETH JACKSON: For years doctors have taken photos of their patients’ ailments for their records, but now doctors are being warned against the use of smart phones for this purpose.
New Australian research has found doctors and nurses are increasingly using smart phones to take photos, but those digital photos are at risk of ending up in the wrong hands.
Samantha Donovan reports.
SAMANTHA DONOVAN: Most of us like to be looking our best in photos.
But doctors and nurses capture images of patients at their worst, mainly to keep on file or for teaching purposes.
The patient is often in surgery under anaesthetic.
Researchers at RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) University and the Menzies School of Health Research has just published a paper examining medical photography practices in 13 wards of one hospital.
The chief executive of the Australian Health Care and Hospitals Association, Alison Verhoeven, says hospitals are taking the emerging issue seriously.
ALISON VERHOEVEN: What they’ve found is that whereas in the past, a medical photographer might have been engaged to take clinical photos, now doctors and other clinicians are taking photos themselves, and they’re using their own mobile phones or digital cameras to do that.
SAMANTHA DONOVAN: The researchers found 48 per cent of medical staff took photos of their patient’s conditions when they thought it would be useful.
Monday’s Four Corners is not the first to highlight the impact to individuals privacy with the widespread use of tracking device and data mining. But it is an excellent introduction to the problem using real people doing ordinary activities. It is worth a view here.
The transcript of the program provides:
KERRY O’BRIEN, PRESENTER: Digital age, welcome to Four Corners.
It’s hardly news in this era of information rich technology that privacy is gradually being eroded, or that our digital profiles are being Read the rest of this entry »
Australian Privacy Principle 11 requires an organisation or agency to “..take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the information from misuse, interference and loss and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure. Encryption has been one of the key means of protecting data, both in situ and, especially, in transit to another location.
In the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines to data security he defines encryption as
Last week the 7.30 program did a piece on Google and privacy. Or the lack of it with Google. Google has had a long and inglorious tradition or prefering data harvesting over privacy considerations. This story was caught Read the rest of this entry »
On 25 June Gardiner AsJ ordered a summons for the examination of Michael Hall (“Hall”) under section 596B of the Corporations Act (The “Act”) by the plaintiff, the joint and several receivers of Banksia Securities Limited (“Banksia”) [1]. Hall applied for orders to set aside the summons in so far as it related to the production of documents [11].
Hall is a member of the the firm MB+M. The plaintiffs are investigating an unqualified audit report for the 2008 financial year which he signed, on behalf of MB+M and whether the provisioning for some of the loans was materially inadequate. At the time of the application no proceedings had been issued against MB+M or Hall [10].
Hall’s submissions
Hall objected on the following bases:
while he accepted that an examinable affair of a company includes the property and that the existence of insurance in respect of a chose in action against a third party is capable of being an examinable affair however stated that the Court can not be Read the rest of this entry »