March 8, 2012
The Privacy Commissioner gave a speech at a conference on 23 February 2012 which I attended.
His speech provides:
I would like to Read the rest of this entry »
February 22, 2012
In Beware of ‘little fish’ surfing on privacy the article provides a useful analysis of the privacy implications of apps which move from data storage issues to full blown privacy breaches. The Path app is as blatant as it comes.
It provides:
The intrusion Read the rest of this entry »
February 1, 2012
Facebook and privacy have not had a good or longstanding relationship.
With Timeline there is another potential privacy problem. On PM last night the implications were discussed. Here is the transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
January 31, 2012
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald there is an interesting article on privacy policies. It provides:
In the spring of 2010 Read the rest of this entry »
January 30, 2012
Privacy breaches in relation to the Personal Property Securities Register The Personal Property Securities Register (PPS Register) established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPS Act) commences today. The PPS Act Read the rest of this entry »
January 27, 2012
The United States Government has reacted strongly to reports about Google’s suspect privacy policy. In today’s Australian article US lawmakers demand answers on Google’s new privacy policy.
The problem arising out of Google and Facebook’s (see Sorry, friends) approach to privacy is that there is no real commitment to a right to privacy. That is fine as long as there are regulations to force compliance. The problem in America and, to a lesser degree, Australia is that the regulations are weak and often anaemically enforced. Until there is an egregious breach, in which case there is a flurry of activity. Until the next breach. This stop start approach to an ongoing issue makes for poor policy and worse practice.
The Economist has undertaken a very useful analysis of privacy regulation throughout the world in Private data, public rules.
January 26, 2012
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Jones v Tsige has by unanimous decision found there is a cause of action for the invasion of personal privacy .
Jones and Tsige worked at different branches of the Bank of Montreal (“BMO”). Jones maintained her primary bank account there. While Jones and Tsige did not know or work with each other Tsige was involved in a relationship with Jones’ former husband. For about four years, Tsige used her workplace computer to access Jones’ personal BMO bank accounts at least 174 times. The information displayed included transactions details, as well as personal information such as date of birth, marital status and address. Jones became suspicious that Tsige was accessing her account and complained to BMO. When confronted by BMO, Tsige admitted that she had looked at Jones’ banking information, that she had no legitimate reason for viewing the information and that she understood it was contrary to BMO’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and her professional responsibility. Tsige explained then and maintained that she was involved in a financial dispute with Jone ’s former husband and accessed the accounts to confirm whether he was paying child support. Jones does not accept that explanation, saying it is inconsistent with the timing and frequency of Tsige’s enquiries ([4] – [5]).
Jones alleged that her privacy interest in her confidential banking information has been “irreversibly destroyed” and claims damages of $70,000 for invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive and exemplary damages of $20,000.
Jones moved for summary judgment and Tsige brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action [8]. On application the judge found that Tsige did not owe Jones a fiduciary obligation and dismissed that claim [9] and, inter alia, that given the existence of privacy legislation protecting certain rights, any expansion of those rights should be dealt with by statute rather than common law (see [12] – [13]).
At [15] – [18] the Court considered the genesis of the tort of privacy, in particular the articles of S.D. Warren & L.D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy” (1890) 4 Harv. L. R. 193 and William L. Prosser, “Privacy” (1960), 48 Cal. L. R. 383. The four-tort catalogue set out by Prosser was:
1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs.
2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff.
3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.
4. Appropriation, for the defendant’s advantage, of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.
This classification has been adopted by Read the rest of this entry »
January 20, 2012
In Love online: 100,000 Grindr users exposed in hack attack, there is yet another report of a privacy breach on line.
The article provides:
A popular “meat-market” smartphone app that spawned a sexual revolution in Australia’s gay community has been compromised by a Sydney hacker, potentially exposing intimate personal chats, explicit photos and private information of users.
The location-aware Grindr app enables gay men to meet other gay men who may be just metres away, making use of their smartphone’s Global Positioning System (GPS). It had about 100,000 Australian users as of August last year and more than one million users worldwide.
Now a hacker Read the rest of this entry »
January 12, 2012
In S and Telecommunication Company the Information Commissioner considered the operation of NPP 6.1 and 6.7.
As with all determinations and case notes the facts are, at best, sketchy. The complainant Read the rest of this entry »
January 11, 2012
In Fiorelli Properties Pty Ltd v Professional Fencemakers Pty Ltd & Anor Kaye J reviewed the law relating to deposits and raising a legal point on appeal which was not agitated at trial.
The appellant (Fiorelli) engaged the first respondent (Professional Fence Makers) to build a fence and its property. Under the terms of an agreement the price was $47,300; being a deposit of $17,300, a first instalment of $15,000 and a final instalment of $15,000. At the time the parties entered into the agreement there was a lack of detail about the the characteristics of the gate, in particular the means by which it would move. This became a significant matter in issue. Fiorelli, through its director, telephoned the second respondent and said that Fiorelli had engaged another company to supply and install the fence and gates and would not require the assistance of Professional Fence Makers. Fiorelli sought repayment of the deposit and return a steel plates it had provided Professional Fence Makers and ultimately it sued Professional Fence Makers for the deposit. At trial the Magistrate found that there was the wrongful repudiation of the agreement by Fiorelli, that Professional Fence Makers accepted that repudiation and that Professional Fence Makers was entitled to retain the deposit.
Fiorelli appealed but only took issue with the Magistrate’s finding that Professional Fence Makers was not required to repay the deposit. Fiorelli contended that Professional Fence Makers was required to remit the balance of the deposit less the amount spent by Professional Fence Makers purchasing materials .
Fiorelli’s counsel submitted Read the rest of this entry »