The Federal Parliament has passed the Evidence Amendment (Journalist’s Privilege) Bill 2010.  It ostensibly is designed to protect journalists’ sources.

The Attorney General’s press release provides:

The new laws will strengthen provisions Read the rest of this entry »

In the recent decision of Messade v Baires Contracting Pty Ltd (Rulings Nos 2,3 & 4) [2011] VSC 75 Justice Forrest made rulings arising out of an error ofcounselcounsel and the highly unusual circumstance of jurors finding themselves in the vicinity of a party outside the court during a trial .

FACTS

The first issue was the failure of counsel for the defendant to put findings/conclusions contained in the defendant’s psychiatric report to the psychiatrist engaged by the plaintiff  so as to compyl with the rule in Brown v Dunn.  Upon  realising her error counsel made application to recall the defendant’s expert. This application was resisted by the plaintiff.  The plaintiffs expert witness was most reluctant to attend again.

The second issue was whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances to discharge a jury because of inadvertent contact between three jurors and the plaintiff during the course of a trial.  There was no suggestion that the plaintiff sought out the jurors or had a conversation with them. The contact, on two occasions,was confined to the three juror finding themselves in the vicinity of the plaintiff while all were waiting for a train at Flagstaff Station. The jurors volunteered this information to the Judge’s associate out of an abundance of caution. An enquiry was made by his honour in the presence of counsel for both parties.

RULINGS

Browne v Dunn

His Honour, at [6], set out the ruling in Brown v Dunn which is always worth recounting:

If you intend to impeach a witness Read the rest of this entry »

That China has little time for privacy on the net is hardly a revelation.  Its contempt for the integrity of search engine is borne out of its obsession to control the flow of content on the net.  Then it is no great surprise to read Google accuses China of interfering with Gmail email system in the Guardian online.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has given the .XXX top-level domain (TLD) its final seal of approval.

The TLD is meant to give pornographic websites a clearly marked home on the Internet, but it has gone through so many ups and downs over the last 11 years that it’s almost a shock that it has finally gone through. Still, the measure didn’t pass without opposition—nine ICANN board members voted in favor of .XXX, while three opposed and four abstained—and the vote went against the recommendation of ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee.

The .XXX TLD was initially proposed by ICM Registry in 2000 and resubmitted in 2004, but it faced strong opposition from politicians and conservative groups. After the second .XXX proposal was approved in 2005, the Family Research Council (FRC) launched a campaign arguing that the TLD would allow pornographers to “expand their evil empires on the Internet.” The porn industry opposed the TLD as well, arguing that it would lead to censorship and promote legislation harmful to the industry.

ICANN’s board of directors ultimately rejected .XXX in 2006, concerned that the TLD might make ICANN responsible for enforcing laws and regulations over Internet porn. Read the rest of this entry »

According to EPIC Facebook has indicated in a letter that it will go forward with a proposal to provide users’ addresses and mobile phone numbers to third-party application developers, including anyone who writes games or applications that use the Facebook platform. The developers would be able to ask users for their contact information, and the user would have to give permission by clicking the “allow” button before they accessed the application.

Facebook’s comments came in response to Read the rest of this entry »

The EU is to force Facebook and other social networks to set high standards on default settings and give control over data back to the user.

EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding stated:

“I want to explicitly clarify that people shall have the right – and not only the possibility – to withdraw their consent to data processing,” Reding said. “The burden of proof should be on data controllers – those who process your personal data. They must prove that they need to keep the data, rather than individuals having to prove that collecting their data is not necessary.”

In the Guardian article Reding’s spokesman, Matthew Newman is quotated as saying:

“A year ago she issued Facebook a warning because the privacy settings changed for the worse and now she’s legislating to put flesh on those bones.”

Facebook profiles have been accessible by default since January last year. Users have to opt in to ensure that their photographs and other information can be viewed only by friends.

Newman said companies “can’t think they’re exempt just because Read the rest of this entry »

I attended lecture by Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe last year on THE ENGLISH LAW OF PRIVACY – AN EVOLVING HUMAN RIGHT .  It is extracted in the latest edition of Bar News (at page 78).

It is a particularly thoughtful speech. Of particular interest his view on the future of the action:

As the law of privacy develops its origin in the law of confidence will become a historical curiosity, and invasion of personal privacy will be recognised as a separate tort. Indeed I think we have probably reached that point already. Another necessary exercise Read the rest of this entry »

It has been three years since Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York after being exposed, so to speak, hiring a prostitute. Ashley Dupre was the high-priced prostitute Spitzer was accused of patronizing.

Ashley was offered a million dollars to be in a new Girls Gone Wild magazine spread and promotional tour. But when the producers realized they already had archival footage of her from years earlier, they revoked that offer.

Dupre sued Joseph Francis, the head of Matra Films (the producer of Girls Gone Wild) for $10 million alleging that he improperly used Dupre’s image from the archival footage. She claimed that because she was only 17 at the time, she didn’t understand the nature of what she was doing. Francis responded by releasing a video that made its rounds on the web that showed the 17-year-old Dupree saying she was of age, and presenting a New Jersey driver’s license bearing the name of plaintiff Arpaio.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Dupre and Girls Gone Wild alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. After none of the defendants responded to the lawsuit, the court entered default against the Girls Gone Wild defendants. Plaintiff never properly served the complaint on Dupre, so it did not enter default judgment against her.

The court awarded plaintiff $3 million in damages. It based this figure on her testimony and other evidence relating to plaintiff’s distress from being mistaken for Dupre, her concern that future employment would be jeopardized from employers doing a Google search on her and learning of the situation, the harm from plaintiff’s children (someday) being exposed to insulting material, and plaintiff’s symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder.

Not a bad piece in the SMH today, Privacy, phone cameras and celebrity encounters, about the ubiquitous camera phone intruding on celebrities as they go about their business, including going to the toilet.

Unfortunately it recites the problems and highlights the problems of not having anything even vaguely like a right to privacy.  If anyone can enforce such a right it is well heeled celebrities keen on keeping a private space.  Then again in the US, where there is a right to privacy (in certain circumstances) paparazzi are even more invasive and common than here.