In Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 the Canadian Supreme Court had to consider the weighing of privacy considerations against rights of freedom of expression in the operation of an Alberta Statute, the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”). The issue for the Supreme Court ws whether PIPA unjustifiably limited a union’s right to freedom of expression in the context of a lawful strike.

FACTS

In 2006, during a 305 day strike the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 (the Union) recorded and photographed individuals crossing a picket line  [4]. The Union posted signs stating that images of those persons might be placed on a web site called www.casinosabs.ca.

The Alberta Information Privacy Commissioner received complaints from:

1. the Vice-President of the Casino who complained that he was photographed or video-taped. Two pictures of him were used on a poster displayed at the picketline with the text: “This is [x’s] Police Mugshot.”
2. a member of the public who testified that cameras were trained on the entrance to the Casino where he would regularly meet friends.
3. a complainant testified that she had been photographed and video-taped while working near the Casino entrance [5].

No recordings of the complainants were placed on the website.

At first instance Read the rest of this entry »

Today there will be no shortage of red faced ABC executives not to mention highly paid presenters of radio and television.  The Australian has published a longish list of the highly paid staff of the ABC on its front and second pages.  It is found here, behind the paywall.

It is a quirk, a deliberate one, that an employees’ salary package is not personal information protected by the Privacy Act.  Employee records are Read the rest of this entry »

The Economist has a general, but not obsessive, interest in the privacy debate.  Particularly regarding technology and governments’ impact upon it.  Usually in tandem.  In Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Privacy Commissioner released draft guidelines on APPs 12 and 13.  Consultations will be open until 16 December 2013 (with a special note that no extensions will be granted after that date….. A bit of a disappointment for those wanting to type away on 24 December 2013.  Bah Humbug!).  The Draft Guidelines are found here.

The Commissioner included a note to the Guidelines for APP 12 and 13, being:

Note 2: In developing Chapter 12, the OAIC has made some textual changes to the discussion of ‘unlawful’ from that in draft Chapter C (Permitted general situations). Also, in developing Chapter 13, the OAIC has made some textual changes to the discussion of ‘accurate’, ‘up-to-date’, ‘complete’ and ‘relevant’ from that outlined in draft Chapter 10 (Quality of personal information). Neither of these changes reflect a consideration of the submissions received on draft Chapter C or draft Chapter 10, which will be considered in due course.

 The guidelines to APP 12 provides, absent summary and footnotes:

What does APP 12 say?                                                   

12.1          An APP entity that holds personal information about an individual must Read the rest of this entry »

The best job in journalism has to be editor of the Legal Affairs.  It is made for lining up behind an issue and just letting loose with Read the rest of this entry »

The Atlantic is one of the best curent affairs in America.  It has published some very thoughtful pieces on privacy over the years.   In The Effort to Stigmatize Privacy as Anti-American the issue covered is the ridiculous knee jerk reaction to Read the rest of this entry »

Zdnet reports, in  Aussies’ lack of confidence in online privacy leads them to lie, on a ACMA commissioned report which found that almost half Australian’s provide inaccurate details on line to protect their data from misuse.

It provides:

With Tin foil hats need to come back in style if we’re to save our privacy Zdnet takes a lighter look at surveillance and whether Read the rest of this entry »

I have posted previously on State and local legislatures passing laws and ordinances on privacy protections (see here, and here).  Where the Federal Government has ignored the issue, leaving it to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate and take enforcement action as best it can,  the States have stepped in.  That is a feature of US politics.  One level of government will become more assertive when another fails to take necessary action.  The Federal Government has done this on high profile issues such as civil rights and with the New Deal legislation during the depression.  But it sometimes works the other way.  Pension and welfare reform has been undertaken at the local and state level for a longer period and been, in many respects, more effective than the efforts of the Federal Government.

The New York Times article No U.S. Action, So States Move on Privacy Law reports on the activity at the state level in the US.  It provides:

Over two dozen privacy laws have passed this year in more than 10 states, in places as different as Oklahoma and California. Many lawmakers say Read the rest of this entry »

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has released its annual report today.  It is found here.

It is a voluminous document, which is normal for an agency.  Chapter 7 deals with privacy compliance.  It provides: