April 14, 2013
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 »
April 1, 2013
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.
March 28, 2013
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 »
March 24, 2013
The UK Times has published the award winning and second and third winnings essays of the topic Privacy and the press: is state regulation in the public interest. They are found here.
They provide:
On May 10, 1768, the crackle of musketry tore through a crowd that had gathered at St George’s Fields. The imprisonment of John Wilkes for seditious and obscene libels had helped to trigger widespread protests against the Government, and the St George’s Fields Massacre was but another bloody milestone in the broader struggle for civil and political liberties in Britain.
Wilkes was not a wholly sympathetic character. A bawdy womaniser, occasional MP and radical journalist, his writing veered between passionate criticisms of the Government and downright obscenity. A practical joke of his involving Read the rest of this entry »
March 10, 2013
In Media law changes move closer the Australian reports that a package of reforms relating to a changes to Australia’s media laws could go to federal cabinet as early as Monday. One of the proposed reforms mooted for discussion is a tort of privacy. Read the rest of this entry »
March 9, 2013
In the UK 3 ex and one current public official have pleaded guilty to selling information to the Sun. The Guardian reports on it here. They pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office. The charges stem from the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed UK’s tabloid press.
It provides:
Old Bailey hears first guilty pleas following arrest as part of investigation into alleged illegal payments to public officials
Two former police officers, an ex-prison officer and another public official have admitted selling information to the Sun – the first people to plead guilty in relation to the investigation into alleged illegal payments by journalists.
Alan Tierney, an ex-Surrey police constable, and former prison officer Richard Trunkfield, both pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office Read the rest of this entry »
The Steve Tyler Act (really a bill) passed through the Hawaii Senate yesterday according to a report ‘Steven Tyler Act’ passed by Hawaii Senate for celebrity privacy.
I have posted on the bill here. It is now to be reviewed, debated and voted upon in the lower house.
It is a significant legislative response to provide persons (not just celebrities) with civil redress against unwanted and unreasonable intrusion into their privacy. Unfortunately it tends to be a piecemeal solution to a more significant problem. It is an advance on the state of Australian law where the likely remedy is nuisance or breach of confidence, not a particularly satisfactory response.
The article provides:
Social networking sites can be, and usually are, corrosive of an individuals privacy. Not that users are not complicit in acting against their best interests; messing up their privacy settings (which are often confusing and contradictory) and just putting out into the social network sphere that which should reasonably be kept private. But social networks are the prime abusers of privacy and their use of information to data mine is an appalling abuse of its user’s rights.
In Path’s Dave Morin at SXSW: “‘We Wanted to Build the Apple of the Internet.” Vanity Fair, briefly, looks into a different approach taken by the Social Network Path.
It provides:
At South by Southwest in Austin, TX, former Facebook executive Dave Morin sat down with Vanity Fair Senior West Coast Editor Krista Smith to talk about his social network, Path, and what he thinks of privacy in the social media age.
“Over the last six months or so we’ve seen a really interesting meme on Path,” said Morin. “People will post things on Path and use the hashtag #pathonly to remind people that, This is something that I only want to be shared with you, that I only want to be shared on Path.”
Path, a family-oriented social network where users can only maintain 150 connections, uses privacy as a hallmark—in an era when Facebook regularly battles accusations that its policies regarding personal information are confusing, or even invasive. An explainer for non-users: Path is based on the idea that humans have limited numbers of workable interpersonal connections. The theory is, if you limit your relationships to only the meaningful ones, sharing personal information or imagery becomes simpler. The Read the rest of this entry »
As with drone technology google glasses is technology that has been known about for some time (see Take a peek through Google glasses (photos)) but regarded as experimental and almost an abstract concept. No longer. As the recent Zdnet article Google Glass: You’ll kiss your privacy goodbye, and you won’t mind a bit makes clear it is viable and on the cusp of public usage, with a release date expected in 2014.
The privacy issues are clear. The solution is less so. What is necessary is the need for the legislature to provide a framework within which the technology can operate but provide some privacy safeguards and, at minimum, control of the use of the data obtained through the use of the glasses, stored and possibly cross matched against a data bank. The Privacy Act is an imperfect means to doing so at the moment. Common law and equitable actions would provide limited assistance to an individual.
The article provides:
Google Glass is causing quite a stir, and rightly so. However, the search giant’s networked specs are creating a buzz as much about the threat to privacy they pose as about the new era of wearable tech they look likely to usher in.
The specs are yet to be released, but Google promises they will let users browse a map, check their mail, record a video directly from the headset, without lifting a finger. But will Google Glass’ ability to (almost) silently take photos or videos using the glasses Read the rest of this entry »