The Phillipines Data Privacy Act takes effect today.  It was signed into law on 24 August (see articles here and here).

The Act’s homepage is found here.

A useful general article on the subject is found in the Phillipine examiner on 31 August 2012 which provided:

With the advances in information technology, privacy in personal data has become illusory. For the right price or with good connections, private information disclosed in confidence to companies or government offices can be made available to or accessed by interested parties.

This is the problem that is sought to be minimized, if not eliminated, by Read the rest of this entry »

The BBC reports in Draft Communications Data Bill: Powers may uncover ‘wrong targets’.  The bill was introduced to Parliament in June 2012.  It is found here.

It provides:

 Civil liberties campaigners describe the proposals as a “snooper’s charter”

Plans to monitor all Britons’ online activity risk uncovering “incompetent criminals and accidental anarchists” rather than serious offenders, the information commissioner has warned.

Ministers want to strengthen the law on internet data retention to help the police tackle security threats.

Christopher Graham said the “really scary people” could simply avoid detection by changing their behaviour.

But another leading watchdog said the proposed new powers were “essential”.

Under the government’s plans, currently being scrutinised by Parliament, service providers will have to store details of internet use in the UK for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it.

Records will include people’s activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming.

Ministers argue Read the rest of this entry »

The Age in Europe puts Google on privacy notice and Google’s privacy policy under fire and ZDnet in Google must review privacy policy, EU data regulators rule report on privacy regulators concerns about Google’s very wide privacy policy and its weak consent provisions.   This is on top of German prosecutors prosecuting Google for collection of Wi FI data by its street view cars (see Google Street View criminal case facing decision time in Germany).

The difference between the European approach to such egregious breaches of privacy as Google collecting Wi Fi data and Read the rest of this entry »

Today the World Today, on ABC radio, had a long and quite in depth discussion involving David Vaile, Timothy Pilgrim and Ashley Hall on privacy issues.  It covered well trod ground but it is nevertheless a worthwhile analysis. It is found here.

It provides:

ASHLEY HALL: In the past few weeks, the notion of privacy has been at the forefront of several stories making news.

The publication of obscene text messages exchanged between the former speaker Peter Slipper and his staffer, James Ashby has many people wondering what would be the consequences, if their own messages were made public.

As well, privacy concerns have been raised Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court of New Zealand in C v Holland has considerably advanced the tort of privacy in New Zealand jurisprudence.

FACTS

The facts are uncontroverted and set out in [2].  The salient facts are:

• in June 2008 the defendant and the plaintiff’s boyfriend purchased a 5 bedroom house where they both resided;
• for  2 years, the plaintiff stayed at the property approximately 4 nights per week before moving in with Mr Z in July 2010;
• on a single occasion, in the period between 27 December 2010 and 9 January 2011, the defendant used a handheld digital camera to record 2 video clips of the plaintiff in the bathroom.  Each of the videos show the plaintiff both partially dressed and completely naked with clear view of her front (pubic area and breasts) and back. ;
• the defendant downloaded the 2 video clips onto his external hard drive;
• there was no evidence that the defendant published or showed the video clips to any person or entity; and
• the plaintiff did not consent to the defendant watching her in the shower or taking the video clips.

The video clips were discovered by the plaintiff’s boyfriend and the plaintiff made a complaint to the police.  The defendant was charged under the Crimes Act (in making an intimate visual recording),  was convicted and ordered to pay $1,000 in emotional harm reparation.

The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendant.

DECISION

The Court identified Read the rest of this entry »

The ABC has an interesting piece on the use of drones and the associated (lack of) privacy protections.  It is found here.

It provides:

Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has warned it may be impossible to use Australia’s privacy laws to prevent someone from being filmed secretly in their own home by a drone.

He says he is confident the Federal Privacy Act would control the actions of government agencies or businesses operating a drone for surveillance.

However, Commissioner Pilgrim has told Radio National’s Background Briefing program the act does not apply to individuals.

“Perhaps one of your neighbours buys one of these things and starts flying it around your local street,” he said.

“What I am not sure about is whether we have sufficient laws to cover the activities of those individuals.

“For example the Federal Privacy Act doesn’t cover the activities of individuals and so in the context of the use of drones, the Act I administer wouldn’t come into play.”

 Commissioner Pilgrim has called on governments Read the rest of this entry »

A French magazine, Closer, has brought the issue of privacy to prominence with its purchase and publication of  photographs of a topless Kate Middleton by a swimming pool while on a private holiday in Provence. The story is found here.  The Guardian reports that the Royal couple are to sue publication for an invasion of privacy.  As does the ABC and the Age.  The action will be under French civil law which has a far stronger privacy protections to those in the UK and other common law countries.

In the United Kingdom the tort of misuse of private information has developed rapidly to protect private information.  It’s genesis in the modern era is the House of Lords decisions of  Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 247 and Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2008] 1 AC 1. The basis of those proceedings was a claim for breach of confidence (described as a misuse of private information).  Since Campbell “privacy” actions have developed to involve a more systematic application of the Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as well as consideration of equitable breach of confidence principles.  The current state of the law is best summarised in McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 where  Buxton LJ stated at [8]:

i) There is no English domestic law tort of invasion of privacy. Previous suggestions in a contrary sense were dismissed by Lord Hoffmann, whose speech was agreed with in full by Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hutton, in Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 [28]-[35].

ii) Accordingly, in developing a right to protect private information Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Trade Commission has announced a settlement with Facebook regarding its policies on sharing information beyond the established privacy settings.

The announcement (found here) provides:

Facebook Must Obtain Consumers’ Consent Before Sharing Their Information Beyond Established Privacy Settings

Following a public comment period, the FTC has accepted as final a settlement with Facebook resolving charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.

The settlement requires Facebook to Read the rest of this entry »

In the Sydney Morning Herald today there is a story on the introduction of body scanners at Australian Airports next month.

It provides:

CONTROVERSIAL full body scanners due to be introduced in airports next month will identify prosthesis wearers, including breast cancer survivors and transgender passengers.

Earlier this year the federal government announced that the new scanners to be installed in eight international terminals would be set to show only a generic stick figure image to protect passengers’ privacy.

But documents released under freedom of information show Read the rest of this entry »

In today’s Australian the Attorney General, Nicola Roxan, wrote an opinion piece on the amendments to the Privacy Act.

It provides:

These days Read the rest of this entry »