Peter A Clarke

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 »

Private litigation under the Privacy Act is quite uncommon.  Part of that is no doubt due to the limited scope for a person to bring such an action under the Act.  It is essentially limited to section 98.   The other reason may be a lack of knowledge of the operation of the Act.  Many think of the Privacy Act as being essentially a means to regulate the retention and use of personal information.  And to a large extent tht is its function.  But not exclusively.

In a very interesting speech titled Privacy Litigation: Substantive lessons and tactical trends – Smallbone v New South Wales Bar Association, delivered to the 2nd National Information Law Conference in Canberra on 15 November 2012 Justice Griffiths considered the use of the Privacy Act by a barrister, Smallbone, to obtain procedural fairness in his application for silk..

The speech highlights the impact of the Privacy Act on the activities of private organsiations and how how it can be used as a vehicle of proecdural rights, in particlar the requirement to afford an individual procedural fairness, that would not otherwise be available to a member of such an organisation as well as a right to access and correct personal information.  In an era of big data and its collection by private organisations this is an important right.

The speech warrants detailed consideration by those interested in privayc issues generally but those who practice in the area of privacy law.  It provides (less numbering and citations):

Introduction

Hollywood has its Oscars; the AFL has its Brownlow Medal night; the NRL has its Dally M awards; and the NSW Bar has a day in October when Read the rest of this entry »

The Age and the Guardian report that Ned RocknRoll has obtained an interlocutory injunction in the High Court in the UK restraining the Sun newspaper from publishing embarrassing photographs of him at a fancy dress party.

The Guardian article provides:

 Kate Winslet‘s husband, Ned Rocknroll, has won his high court bid to prevent the Sun from publishing “embarrassing” pictures of him partly naked at a fancy dress party.

Lawyers for Rocknroll argued that his privacy would be grossly invaded if pictures Read the rest of this entry »

The Economist in Know thyself, undertakes a brief review of the data locker phenomena (including as a privacy protection device).

It provides:

On 12 December Lord Justice Leveson gave his second speech in a week, titled Hold the Front Page – News gathering in a time of change.  It is a broad ranging consideration of the law and the internet.

It provides:

Introduction
1. It is a real privilege to have been asked to give this public lecture and, echoing the Vice Chancellor, I am pleased to acknowledge that we are standing on the land of the Wurundjeri people and to pay respect to their Elders and families past and present. I would also like to thank the Centre for Advanced Journalism at the University of Melbourne for the invitation. I am delighted to be here.
2. I hope you will forgive me for providing some context to what I am about to say. As you are aware, I have spent the last 17 months engaged in an Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The Report was published nearly a fortnight ago, on 29 November 2012, and, as I have said before, it may be that some of you are hoping that I will elaborate. If you Read the rest of this entry »

The Economist has written a very interesting story on recent developments in on line privacy in Difference Engine: Nobbling the internet .

It provides:

TWO measures affecting the privacy internet users can expect in years ahead are currently under discussion on opposite sides of the globe. The first hails from a Senate committee’s determination to make America’s online privacy laws even more robust. The second concerns efforts by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, to rewrite its treaty for regulating telecommunications around the world, which dates from 1988, so as to bring the internet into its fief.

Many fear Read the rest of this entry »

The Australian Privacy Commissioner has released a Guide to information security.

It is a comprehensive document.  It is worth extracting some of the opening passages such the “The purpose of the guide” which  provides:

This guide provides guidance on the reasonable steps entities are required to take under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to protect the personal information they hold from misuse, loss and from unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure.
This guide is aimed at helping entities meet their Privacy Act obligations by:

• outlining Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Privacy Commissioner issued a press release today regarding the passage of the amendments to the Privacy Act.

It provides:

The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012, passed Parliament today, and is due to come into effect in March 2014. The Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, says the new laws are an important milestone for privacy in Australia. He is confident the reforms will enhance the protection of peoples’ personal information.

The reforms Read the rest of this entry »

The Senate has released the Schedule of Amendments to the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012. I have also extracted the Hansard of the debate in the Senate.

The amendments are:

2010-2011-2012

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THE SENATE

Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012

Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate

(1)     Govt (1) [Sheet BP262]

Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 2), omit “9 months”, substitute “15 months”.

(2)     Govt (2) [Sheet BP262]

Clause 2, pages 2 to 3 Read the rest of this entry »