The Age today has launched a series on privacy.  Very commendable and apposite given the recent controversy on photographs of Kate Middleton.  The article You’re being more closely watched, is a good opening.

It provides:

AUSTRALIANS’ privacy protections have been eroded more than in any other country since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, experts warn.

Over the past decade Australia and its Western allies in the ”war against terror”, including the US, Britain and France, have collected more information about their citizens’ movements in an effort to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Concerns about dwindling privacy protections come as two separate government inquiries into changes in Australia’s major privacy laws continue.

”We’ve gone further 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 »

Yesterday the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives.

It is a lengthy and significant bill providing:

Part 1—Amendment of the Corporations Act 2001

Corporations Act 2001

1  Section 9

Insert:

Australian derivative Read the rest of this entry »

In today’s Punch, There’s no hiding the horror of a world without privacy, there is a reasonable article on privacy and intrusive technology.

It provides:

Young kids are growing up in an environment where it is normal to disclose their every thought, location and photo to friends and strangers alike on social media. Integrated technology allows businesses and governments to compile a dossier of information about your finances and personal life with every transaction.

Even now, with so much of your habits unwittingly disclosed by what you buy and look at online, you’ve shared more with your ISP than your own family probably knows. Without doubt, there is more information about you floating in the ether at the moment than you realise. Numberplate tracking, loyalty programs, website caching, online purchases and banking data, medical info, download histories… even your current location thanks to the GPS on the smartphone in your pocket.

And, as a bonus Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill was read a second time.

The Attorney General’s Second Reading Speech provides:

The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 is one of the most significant developments in privacy reform since Labor introduced the act in 1988.

With this bill Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook and privacy may not be strangers but they only have passing awareness of each other.  Having just resolved a breach of an agreement in America Facebook finds itself being investigated, again, in Germany for retaining biometric data without consent.

The article in out-law.com provides:

German privacy regulator re-opens investigation into Facebook facial recognition feature

Section 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act is a very useful provision when dealing with directors and shareholders who are in dispute but there is no evidence of oppression (where sections 232 and 233 would apply). The circumstances giving rise to the court exercising the very broad discretion vary.  As such it is worth briefly reviewing 3  decisions to gauge the approach the court’s take in the very practical exercise of deciding whether it is appropriate to wind up a company; Giacobbe & Anor v Giacobbe & Anor [2012] VSC 285, Warner v Global Pacific Aerospace Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] VSC 291 and White Family No 1 Pty Ltd v Organic Brands Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] VSC 247.

Giacobbe & Anor v Giacobbe & Anor [2012] VSC 285

Facts

Michele and Antonio Giacobbe, brothers, went into business in 1962 manufacturing and selling office furniture. In October 1974, a family trust was established and the furniture business became an asset of the trust.  The beneficiaries of the trust were the two brothers and their respective family members. In the early 1980s, Michele and Antonio fell out Read the rest of this entry »