Peter A Clarke

On 5 December 2013 the Age ran a piece titled Are you prepared for the March 2014 Privacy Act changes?  It is a piece, with helpful links to business.gov.au and the Privacy Commissioner’s site, that sets out directly and pithily the key issues that every organisation and agency needs to address now rather than in March 2014.

Does the Act apply to my business?

Evernote is app royalty.  A huge following and a very practical app.  I have Evernote.  But, as I have posted earlier, apps are prone to privacy breaches.  App developers and managers commonly fail to develop privacy protections, protocols and means of handling personal information.  The BBC in Evernote to focus on fixing bugs after complaints highlights how even the established and well regarded apps fall down in the privacy department. The constant challenge Read the rest of this entry »

Google and privacy.  Rarely a good fit, whether as a noun or adjective.  In Glass, Hats and Persistent Privacy Violations Wired reports on the privacy invasive actuality (not potential) of google caps/hats/glasses.  This technology, like drones, highlight the lacuna in the law.  Inadequate common law protections, a Privacy Act which would not be applicable for vast majority of users and no statutory right of privacy.

The article provides:

HAMBURG – In a perfect future, Stephen Balaban wants plenty of people to be wearing his Lambda Hat, a soon-to-be-released baseball-hat version of Google Glass. But even he has mixed feelings about the results.

Speaking here at the 30th annual Chaos Communication Congress, a conference that puts the highest premium possible on privacy, Balaban offered an uncomfortable reminder of the tradeoffs associated with the rise of ubiquitous computing, including his own use of his own product’s prototype.

“The sheer amount of data 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 »

In Doctor calls for secret filming ban after ACA sting the Age reports on a complaint by a Queensland doctor to a story run by A Current Affair regarding certificates issued on, supposedly, weak grounds.  The nub of the complaint is Read the rest of this entry »

The growing controversy in the United States about data mining is again on the front page of the news.  In How the U.S. Uses Technology to Mine More Data More Quickly the New York Times provides a very useful background on how data is mined.

It provides:

WASHINGTON — When American analysts hunting terrorists sought new ways to comb through the troves of phone records, e-mails and other data piling up as digital communications exploded over the past decade, they turned to Silicon Valley computer experts who had developed complex equations to thwart Russian mobsters intent on credit card fraud.

Today, a revolution in software technology that Read the rest of this entry »

In Protectors of privacy and proprietary are beginning to speak out, originally a  New York Times story, the issue of the privacy invasive technology is discussed in a sensible, balanced manner.  Google Glass and any other wearable computers have the potential to interfere with privacy. They may compromise security for much the same reason why cameras are banned in certain governmental buildings, law courts and parts of airports . Their use may threaten intellectual property; a for instance is wearing the computer while a product is being made.  Used in conjunction with a suitable app and using specially designed alogorithims a wearable computer with a camera facility could be much more effective, read damaging, than a video camera or audio recorder, or both combined.  The law is struggling to keep up with these developments and legislatures are non plussed.

The article provides:

Perhaps the best way to predict how society Read the rest of this entry »

Facial recognition technology has been touted both as part of a dystopic nightmare or a leap forward in policing and enhanced security.  Without privacy safeguards the former is a likelihood.  As to how it will be used by police or security will determine how effective it is.  The real question however is whether it actually works.  To date the evidence has been at best mixed.  It does not work well with people who are wearing headgear.  Without a sufficient view of a target’s face it can be ineffective and it needs to be sufficient focused to work.  The industry touts its benefits and the media love facial recognition stories but it is technology which has had a long gestation and there is no guarantee of a safe delivery.

In Google Glass gets face recognition the AFR reports on an app being develop which will have face recognition glasses for Google Glasses.  The article provides:

Updated: Now this is why I would fork over $1500 and risk looking like a tool to wear a pair of Google Glasses: face recognition.

Lambda Labs, a San Francisco-based augmented reality company, says it has developed facial recognition software for Google’s Read the rest of this entry »

The latest edition of the Harvard Law Review was released today (Volume 126 Number 7).  It is notable because it includes papers delivered at a Symposium on Privacy And Technology.

The Papers are:

Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma.

The extract reads as follows:

Symposium by Daniel J. Solove :: During the past decade, the problems involving information privacy Read the rest of this entry »