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 »

In Arhanghelschi v Ussher [2013] VSC 253 the Supreme Court, per Ferguson J, consider the claim of oppression and the construction of the unit trust deed.

FACTS

Dr Arhanghelschi, the Plaintiff, and the four defendants are radiologists who conducted a practice in Ballarat under the name Base Imaging Group Pty Ltd (“BIG”).  Through BIG the doctors successfully tendered for work from the Ballarat Health Services (“BHS”) in 2009. In June 2010 they established a unit trust which performed its obligations under the BHS contract. Each doctor held 20% of the units in the trust.

The four defendant doctors wished to part company with Arhanghelschi.   On 4 March 2013 three of the unit holders gave notice under the Deed  stating that they wished Arhanghelschi  to cease to be involved in the business with immediate effect [13]. On 7 March 2013 the defendants gave notice requiring the trust to convene a meeting [15]. That meeting took place on 15 March where the directors resolved that Arhanghelschi  resign as a director of BIG and from his position with BHS [17].  No reason was given at the meeting for the action taken but at trial the defendant’s evidence was that Arhanghelschi was unapproachable, he took long lunches, left early and arrived late, and finally was working for a Bendigo radiology group [19].

DECISION

Is there an obligation of good faith and reasonableness

Her Honour stated that a Unitholders Deed must 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 »

Salon reports in Senate: Drones require new privacy laws  about testimony before a Senate panel calling for an upgrading of privacy protections in light of the increasing proliferation of drones in the US.

The article provides:

As domestic surveillance drones proliferate, the public needs greater protection experts tell hearing

WASHINGTON – Privacy laws urgently need to be updated to protect the public from information-gathering by the thousands of civilian drones expected to be flying in U.S. skies in the next decade or so, legal experts told a Senate panel Wednesday.

A budding commercial drone industry is poised to put mostly small, unmanned aircraft to countless uses, from monitoring crops to acting as lookouts for police SWAT teams, but federal and state privacy laws have been outpaced by advances in drone technology, experts said at a Senate hearing.

Current privacy protections from aerial surveillance are based on Read the rest of this entry »

The Atlantic published a story, So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman, regarding  the use of a drone in Seattle by a person to interfere with another’s privacy.

It provides:

Back in October, Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with regard to the air above our property. Walk onto someone’s lawn and you’re trespassing; fly over it in a helicopter and you’re in the clear — “the air is a public highway,” the Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) throw a wrench in the old legal understandings?

Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of questioning. The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog is reporting a complaint it received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood. She writes:

This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Privacy Commissioner issued a press release regarding cyber security in line with National Cyber Security Awareness week, commencing today.

It states, in part:

Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim today encouraged all Australians to take steps to protect their personal information during National Cyber Security Awareness Week (20 to 24 May 2013). The aim of the Awareness Week is to help people understand the simple steps they can take to protect their personal and financial information when online.

‘The web has Read the rest of this entry »

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:

The effect on Boston of the terrorist bombing has been profound.  I am currently in Boston at a conference at the MIT.  It dominates the news, it permeates discussions.  And it seems to be effecting American’s views on street surveillance.  The New York Times in Poll Finds Strong Acceptance for Public Surveillance  highlights a willingness of the public to allow for greater surveillance Read the rest of this entry »