Wired reports in Brothel Patrons Have No Legal Expectation of Privacy, Judge Rules that a Maine Judge dismissed privacy related charges against an accused who secretly filmed illicit sexual encounters in a makeshift brothel he allegedly operated.

It provides:

Brothel patrons have no expectation of privacy, a Maine judge has ruled Read the rest of this entry »

On 22 January 2013 the Victorian Privacy Commissioner announced 28 January 2013 as Data Privacy Day.

In a press release, Data Privacy Day, January 28 2013 Respecting Privacy, Safeguarding Data and Enabling Trust, the Privacy Commissioner stated:

Data Privacy Day is held on January 28th every year. This international effort to empower people to protect their privacy and control their digital footprint serves to remind people that the protection of privacy and data is everyone’s priority. As a Data Privacy Day Champion, Privacy Victoria is reminding people that the privacy of personal information is important and it should be respected.
Acting Victorian Privacy Commissioner Dr Anthony Bendall says, “In our online world, data flows freely from person to person, and between people and government and other organisations. Information about people has to travel and be shared electronically for a healthy society and economy, and for healthy relationships between people, governments and business. But this information also needs to be protected so that the people who need to see and use the information are the only ones who see and use it.”
You have privacy responsibilities
“All of us – from home computer users to government organisations and the largest businesses – need to be aware of the personal and private data others have entrusted to us and remain vigilant and proactive about protecting it.”
“Protecting your own privacy Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Post reports in Obama administration updates medical privacy safeguards and creates new rights for consumers on a strengthening of medical privacy rules.

It provides:

WASHINGTON — Those medical privacy rules you run into at hospitals, pharmacies and in your own doctor’s office are getting an update.

Regulations unveiled this week by the Obama administration create new information rights that should make life easier for consumers. They also tighten restrictions on medical service providers trying to use patient information for marketing, and they greatly expand the list of businesses that can be punished for unauthorized disclosures.

“The government has taken pretty dramatic steps to strengthen privacy protections that Read the rest of this entry »

In Dangerous chat the Economist highlights a live and growing issue, defamation by the supposedly anonymous on the net.  In this case lawyers in the US Attorney’s office engaged in, at best, tasteless commentary on active federal cases and judges.  The article provides:

The Economist in Chips off the old block provides an excellent overview of surveillance technology being used to monitor minors.  The application of the devices are, as the article notes, ubiquitous.  The impact on privacy, irrespective of any benefit subscribed to the devices (which the article notes is not guaranteed or even likely) is obvious.

The article provides:

PAUL WALLICH usually walks his small son to the bus stop a stone’s throw from their Vermont home. But he can use a robot too: a football-sized drone, hovering several metres off the ground, follows a beacon stashed in the little boy’s school bag. A smartphone strapped to the device beams back video.

In Re Australian Property Holdings Limited (in liq) (recs & mgrs apptd) (No 2) [2012] VSC 576  Robson J considered applications by the defendants to stay the proceedings, which was refused, and to file limited defences, which was granted.

FACTS

Australian Property Custodian Holdings (“APCH”) commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against seven of its former directors to recover $30 million that was paid out of its assets it held on trust as a fee to companies controlled by Mr Lewski [1].  ASIC  commenced action in the Federal Court against APCH and 5 of its directors who are also defendants in this proceeding alleging breaches of the Corporations Act (“the Act”).

APCH is the responsible entity of the Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property Trust, a managed investment scheme under the Act [5].  In 2006 the constitution of the Prime Trust was amended by the board of APCH to provide for a payment of a listing fee to APCH if units of the Prime Trust were listed on the ASX [7], which they were in August 2007[8] and APCH received $33m out of the assets of the trust. The Supreme Court proceedings were commenced by the liquidator on 5 March 2012 in the name of APCH [13] and a statement of claim was filed and served against all defendants for compensation under sections 1317H and HA or 1325 of the Act as well as a claim for equitable compensation[14]. ASIC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court on 21 August 2012 [15].

Both proceedings allege that APCH breached its statutory duties under the Act in amending the trust to the detriment of the unit holders [10] and both rely upon section 601FD [11].

DECISION

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

The Supreme Court has an inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice [19] (which is the overriding consideration [24]).  His Honour set out, at [21], the relevant principles regarding a stay found in McMahon v Gould as follows (absent citations):

(a) Prima facie a plaintiff is entitled to have his action Read the rest of this entry »

On Friday the Government published both the names of the Commissioners of the Royal Commission and the Letters Patent (containing the terms of reference). The homepage is found here.

The Commissioners are, together with their descriptions:

Private litigation under the Privacy Act is quite uncommon.  Part of that is no doubt due to the limited scope for a person to bring such an action under the Act.  It is essentially limited to section 98.   The other reason may be a lack of knowledge of the operation of the Act.  Many think of the Privacy Act as being essentially a means to regulate the retention and use of personal information.  And to a large extent tht is its function.  But not exclusively.

In a very interesting speech titled Privacy Litigation: Substantive lessons and tactical trends – Smallbone v New South Wales Bar Association, delivered to the 2nd National Information Law Conference in Canberra on 15 November 2012 Justice Griffiths considered the use of the Privacy Act by a barrister, Smallbone, to obtain procedural fairness in his application for silk..

The speech highlights the impact of the Privacy Act on the activities of private organsiations and how how it can be used as a vehicle of proecdural rights, in particlar the requirement to afford an individual procedural fairness, that would not otherwise be available to a member of such an organisation as well as a right to access and correct personal information.  In an era of big data and its collection by private organisations this is an important right.

The speech warrants detailed consideration by those interested in privayc issues generally but those who practice in the area of privacy law.  It provides (less numbering and citations):

Introduction

Hollywood has its Oscars; the AFL has its Brownlow Medal night; the NRL has its Dally M awards; and the NSW Bar has a day in October when Read the rest of this entry »

The Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2012 will come into effect on 1 May 2013.

The key amendments relate to orders the court may make on costs, the conduct of experts and expert reports and amendments to the certification process.  Those provisions as well as the explanatory memoranda are extracted below. The transitional provisions are not extracted below.

 The material amendments are:

Part 4.5 of Chapter 4 (Costs)

65A Order to legal practitioner as to length and costs of trial 

(1)     A court may Read the rest of this entry »