In Is Privacy Worth the Loss of Opportunity? the author pithily sets out the dilema of applying for a position when connected to social media, listed on Google and searchable through other on line fora, such as Twitter.  Matters relevant to a job application are not on your average Facebook page.  A private life does not have any real relevance to one’s performance at work.  There are the occasional exceptions, some security agency positions.

The article provides:

As information security Read the rest of this entry »

The Economist has published 2 privacy related articles in recent additions.  In Microsoft and privacy Microsoft is reportedly going to set Do Not Track as a default in Internet Explorer 10 which will appear with Windows 8.

The Article provides:

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 »

Ferguson J in Elite Catering Equipment Pty Ltd v Seroshtan [2012] VSC 241 (8 June 2012) considered an appeal from an Associate Justice who dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand.

FACTS

The Plaintiff (“Elite”) is a manufacturer, importer and wholesaler of commercial refrigeration and catering equipment [1].  The Statutory demand relates to the loan by the Defendant, Seroshtan, of $140,000 and interest of $93,355.07. Elite is a a trustee of a unit trust, with the units held in equal shares by three persons, including Seroshtan.  The three unit holders provided funds to acquire the business operated by Elite in 2006.  Seroshtan provided $133,000. Elite submitted that the funds provided were by way of capital rather than a loan.  The nature of the agreement between the parties was the subject of Read the rest of this entry »

The ABC reports of Thomson tabloid TV war sparks privacy concerns

Two tabloid television shows are squabbling over an interview with a former prostitute who now says she never had sex with MP Craig Thomson.

Yesterday a former prostitute came forward on Channel Seven’s Today Tonight show to recant her story Read the rest of this entry »

In today’s Age there is a story of police trialing Cop Cam’s, minature video cameras which will record police interactions with the public. It is found here.

It provides:

POLICE will record their interactions with the public on video and audio equipment attached to their uniforms under Read the rest of this entry »

In Case note 229558 [2012] NZ PrivCmr 1 the Privacy Commissioner considered the collection of personal information on an employee’s computer.

FACTS

During an employment investigation an employer collected personal information from a man’s work computer. The information included emails sent to and from the work computer, as well as key stroke logs for the computer. The employer used information collected from key stroke logging to access the man’s personal web-based email account and copy several emails.

The man complained to us about the information his employer had collected.

DECISION

Two issues were identified; information collected directly from the work computer and information collected from the man’s personal email account.

Information collected directly from the work computer

This complied with Read the rest of this entry »

In AW v Statutory Authority [2012] VPrivCmr 1 the Privacy Commissioner considered a complaint about anonymity.

FACTS

The Complainant had a problem with alleged delays and long waiting times at a particular service provider. He complained to the Statutory Authority who Read the rest of this entry »

In Desal firm ‘sorry’ over secret files the Age reports on an ongoing Federal Court case involving allegations that Theiss Degremont gave applicant’s files to a third party.

The article provides:

THE builder of the Wonthaggi desalination plant has apologised to workers after it gave a strikebreaker files with confidential information on more than 15,000 people.

The files included medical records, bank account numbers, and salary details of many who applied for a job building the plant.

The plant’s builder, Thiess Degremont, in 2010 gave the files to self-proclaimed union buster Read the rest of this entry »

The Privacy Commissioner has released a  determination, A and Financial Institution [2012] AICmrCN 1. The NPPs considered were  NPP 2.1, an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection, unless an exception applies.

Facts

The complainant was a customer of a financial institution. The financial institution required the complainant to provide a mobile phone number when it set up internet banking. It told the complainant that the mobile phone number would only be used in providing security identification for internet banking.

Five years later, a direct marketing company made several calls to the complainant to sell insurance products on behalf of the financial institution. The financial institution sent the complainant a letter about its insurance products a week before the telephone calls. A notice in fine print at the back of the letter stated that the financial institution would send the complainant’s mobile phone number to the financial institution’s contract company, to call the complainant, unless the complainant contacted a specified number to advise they wanted to be excluded from the calling program.

Decision

The financial institution relied on NPP 2.1(a) claiming that because the complainant had not  advised it did not want to participate in the calling program, it was entitled to assume that its disclosure of the complainant’s personal information, including the mobile phone number, was within the complainant’s reasonable expectations.

The Commissioner found that to satisfy NPP 2.1(a), the disclosure Read the rest of this entry »