The Privacy Commissioner has published the speech he gave last week. It can be found here.

Below is a slightly edited transcript.  It relevantly provides:

Recently the World Today the report UK youth commissioner under fire over foul tweets highlights the permanence of the cybersphere and what one in the full bloom of fiery youth may regret as the rules of polite society beckon.  Woad warriors could transform themselves into paragons of virtue pre internet.  Memories fade and plausible deniability is an active option. Now the the Net sets all matters in in cyber concrete.  This has had an impact lately on Paris Brown.

The story provides:

ELEANOR HALL: Teenagers are often warned about what they say on social media sites: that they could come back to haunt them in later life.

A young woman in the UK didn’t have to wait long.

17-year-old Paris Brown’s position as the country’s first Youth Police and Crime Commissioner has been put in doubt Read the rest of this entry »

Who would have thought someone from Google would raise worries about privacy……..about anything.  But it has happened.  In Google chief urges action to regulate mini-drones Eric Schmidt raises privacy and security concerns about drones.

The article provides:

The Read the rest of this entry »

In Complainant AY v Public Sector Employer [2013] VPrivCmr 02 the Victorian Privacy Commissioner considered a serious complaint about a breach of privacy by a public sector employer.

FACTS

In approximately 2006 Read the rest of this entry »

On 3 April 2013 ARCA released its draft of the new CR Code, an integral part of the regulatory framework of those governed by the Credit Reporting provisions of the Privacy Act.

The public consultation closes on 5 May 2013.

The Information Commissioner’s media release of yesterday’s date is found here.

The draft CR Code and details for lodging a submission can be found here.

Part of the ARCA submission Read the rest of this entry »

Last Wednesday, 3 April 2013, the stand in presenter on the ABC morning shift in Melbourne, Sally Warhurst interviewed Hai Tran of Coptercam regarding the civilian use of drones.  It is found here.  It is Read the rest of this entry »

Professor Richards, of the Washington University in St Louis School of Law has published an excellent article in the latest edition of the Harvard Law Review titled The Dangers of Surveillance.

The abstract provides:

From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, our law and literature are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad, and why we should be wary of it. To the extent the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context, and why it matters. Developments in government and corporate practices, Read the rest of this entry »

The Sydney Morning Herald with I spy with my little fly … animal cruelty , the Australian with Farmers ‘may shoot down drones’ sent by Animal Liberation to check their stock , the ABC with Animal welfare group to monitor farms with drone, the Daily Telegraph with Animal Liberation spying drones attract ire of farmers, the Age with Drone will range freely over farms to keep tabs on animal welfare all report on Animal Liberation’s announcement that it will operate a camera mounted drone over private properties to monitor the treatment of livestock and gather evidence of animal cruelty.

Animal Liberation claims it has legal advice that it has legal advice that what they will be doing is legal. From the Sydney Morning Herald article :

And there appears to be little farmers can do to avoid coming under drone surveillance – flying drones above tree height is legal.

”Our legal advice is that if you’re no nearer than 10 metres above ground, and you’re not filming in anyone’s houses, you can go ahead,” said Mark Pearson, head of the animal welfare group.

George Williams, academic and commentator,  fairly well summarised the lamentable situation of a privacy tort, or non tort, in Australia in Privacy: the fix should not be left to judges. As Williams alludes, the ALRC, the NWSLRC and the VLRC have all recommended a statutory right of action for interference with privacy, by anyone and not just media.  That the Government should see some benefit in referring back to the ALRC the tort of privacy for further examination makes no legal or policy sense.  The ALRC emphatically said it was a good idea and set out the elements of the action and the defences to it.  Nohting of susbstance has changed since the report of 2008 and the Government’s discussion paper on the subject in 2011.  It makes sense if one looks Read the rest of this entry »