In FTC: Give mobile device users more privacy disclosures — or else the Los Angeles Times reports that the Federal Trade Commission has released guidelines for mobile privacy.  The FTC news release is found here and the guidelines are found here. The Washington Post in FTC speaks up on mobile privacy… covers the same issue.

The article provides:

 SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Trade Commission called on the fast-growing mobile device marketplace to do a better job of alerting consumers to what the various market players do with their personal information.

It released guidelines for mobile privacy on Friday. The guidelines target Read the rest of this entry »

The Privacy Rights Clearing House performs the valuable task of advising on privacy issues, considering and acting on complaints and recording privacy breaches.

In 2013 alone the Clearing house recorded 27 breaches involving 22,031 records.  Those breaches are categorised and described Read the rest of this entry »

David Penberthy in Censorious laws treat us all like children is the latest in a long line of members of the Fourth Estate sounding the alarm about a statutory right to privacy.  That perhaps is a tad unfair.  The article deals with a range of other “threats” to the reportage, more real than the illusory danger of a statutory right of privacy.  To wit the consolidation of the anti discrimination Act. Vilification legislation is, and has always been, bad public policy, poorly drafted and unevenly enforced.  It achieves little beyond chilling speech. It does not change malefactors’ views.  It puts the court’s in the invidious of having to assess what is objectionable speech and what is legitimate public debate, what is orthodoxy and whether dissent is appropriately stated.  The legislation should be overhauled at minimum or preferably repealed.

A statutory right to privacy should not chill speech, particularly commentary, if drafted properly.  In any event, notwithstanding the commentary, it does not exist solely in the space of reportage nor is its focus or underlying rationale to limiting what can be covered or how it may be covered.

The article provides (with commentary):

It was one of the most confronting Australian news images of 2012. A little boy holding a placard reading “Behead all those who insult the Prophet”, standing among the hysterical crowd at the Sydney protests against an obscure art-house film ridiculing Mohammed.

The discussion inspired by that image was impassioned. The child and, particularly, his parents were held up as evidence that something was seriously wrong within sections of our multicultural society.

The heated nature of the discussion was not surprising at all, even if some of it was unpleasantly over-the-top. But in a free society such as ours it was still a conversation worth having.

You can understand that the family in question felt distressed. Yet it was their own abysmal actions, in using their kid as the tiny front man for the most sickening political demand, which turned them and their little boy into public figures, and valid subjects for public debate. If they didn’t want to face this kind of distress they should probably have ditched their stupid sign and stayed home and let their son play with his Lego, rather than parade him about in Martin Place demanding beheadings.

I write about this issue not to dredge it up again but to consider how it would have been reported and how it could have been discussed under the changes surrounding media conduct and public conversation being considered by the Gillard Government. From what has been revealed by the Government so far, and from what the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is also believed to have up his sleeve, it is doubtful that a story such as this one could have been reported at all.

On privacy grounds I doubt Mr Penberthy is correct.  Privacy laws in the UK (the closest equivalent in the current debate) do not prohibit coverage of demonstrations including those involving children.  The application of privacy law in the UK relating to children has been specific and limited.

In addition, Read the rest of this entry »

The 28th January 2013 is Data Privacy Day.  In recognition of that, or because it is as good a pretext as any other and better than most the Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner has issued a media release about privacy in 2013. It is found here.

It provides:

Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim is advising Australians that 2013 is shaping up to be the biggest year for privacy in over 20 years. In recognition of Data Privacy Day, held on 28 January 2013, Mr Pilgrim is reminding Australians to take steps to protect their privacy and control their digital footprint.

‘In the age of big data, social media and cloud computing, it is increasingly important that people think about the concept of privacy and what it means to them. I am concerned that people aren’t considering the potential risks of disclosing too much personal information, particularly when engaging online,’ Mr Pilgrim said.

‘Organisations should also be vigilant about privacy, in particular, the protection of personal information entrusted to them by their customers. With regular reports of data breaches and their impact on individuals as well as on business reputation, the importance of getting privacy right cannot be underestimated.’

2013 will be a significant year for businesses and government agencies as they prepare for major changes to the Privacy Act 1988. The changes include the introduction of a single set of Australia Privacy Principles, new credit reporting laws, and enhanced enforcement powers for the Privacy Commissioner to promote, and where necessary, enforce privacy compliance.

‘The new laws are an important Read the rest of this entry »

In Lawmaker questions Disney’s plan for wristband data the issue of data collection and tracking is brought into sharp relief.  Disney plans to use the computer chips in “MagicBands” (it always amazes how the spin merchants brand potentially hideous privacy destroying technology in such sunny terms) to gather marketing data on children.

It provides:

‘MagicBands’ to be used by Walt Disney World parkgoers will contain computer chips that a congressman fears could be used to gather marketing data on children. Disney says wristbands will be optional.

A congressman from Massachusetts raised questions Thursday about how Walt Disney Co. will use information it collects when it gives parkgoers new wristbands embedded with computer chips.

Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), who co-chairs a congressional panel on privacy, asked Walt Disney Co. Chairman and Chief Executive Robert A. Iger in a letter what information the park will collect with the so-called MagicBand and how it will be used.

“Widespread use of MagicBand bracelets by park guests could dramatically increase the personal data Disney can collect about its guests 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 the Age today in Australians most vulnerable to virtual stalkers the issue of tracking software and privacy is covered with reference to a report from the Centre for Internet Safety, Taming the Cookie Monster.

The article provides:

Australians are among the world’s heaviest internet users but also the most exposed to being tracked online by companies after personal information, a report warns.

The report by the Centre For Internet Safety, associated with the University of Canberra, calls for greater privacy protection for Australians through Read the rest of this entry »

On 17 January 2013 Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in the High Court Chancery Division, published his reasons in  RocknRoll v News Group Newspapers Ltd granting an interim injunction restraining News Group Newspaper from publishing photographs of Edward RocknRoll (the “claimant”).  See my post on the reportage here.

FACTS

In July 2010 the claimant attended a private fancy dress party to celebrate the 21st birthday of his then wife’s sister at her parent’s private estate [1].  Another guest at the party took photographs of the claimant (“the Photographs”), some of which showed him partly naked. The Photographs were posted on the photographer’s Facebook page where they could be viewed by his 1,500 “friends”, until subsequent changes to the Facebook settings resulted in them being made accessible to the general public (unbeknownst to the photographer).  Since the Photographs were taken the claimant divorced his first wife and married Kate Winslet, an actress [2].  The Photographs came to the attention of the defendant at the beginning of January 2013 [3] and it:

“..wishes to publish the Photographs, together with a description of their contents, in the Sun newspaper, and notified the claimant of its intention to do so, albeit not the source of the Photographs… it intended to pixillate the part of any published photographs which showed the lower half of the Claimant’s body.”

DECISION

At [5] his Honour set out the general principles applicable in considering an application for injunctive relief against misuse of private information in the Read the rest of this entry »

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.

The former owner of a medical billing practice and fourt pathology groups have agreed to  a consent judgment and $140,000 payment to settle charges they improperly disposed of medical information. The defendantswere accused of dumping hard copy medical records at the Georgetown Transfer Station, a waste management facility open to the public.

The records allegedly contained the names, Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses of approximately 67,000 individuals.  The complaint against the medical practices alleged violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule as well as the Massachusetts information security regulations that require reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect personal information.

The Attorney General’s press release is found here and relevantly provides:

Former owners of a Marblehead-based medical billing practice and four pathology groups have agreed to collectively pay $140,000, settling allegations that sensitive medical records and confidential billing information for tens of thousands of Massachusetts patients were improperly Read the rest of this entry »