The Age has run a long piece on data mining (found here). The privacy implications of unrestricted data mining has been well known for some time.  The scope for abuse of a database is significant, particularly when it contains financial details such as credit card numbers etc…  Even addresses, phone numbers and other identifiers provide the raw material for identity theft and fraud.

The article provides:

You’re walking by a shop you’ve been to in the past. Your mobile phone beeps and you find a text message offering you a discount if you buy something in the next 15 minutes.

Is it a great offer or an unwanted intrusion?

Are you happy that the phone company and the retailer know enough about you to create personalised marketing?

Or do you find it creepy that you can’t walk down the street in peace?

Advances in technology Read the rest of this entry »

Jennifer Urban, Chris Jay Hoofnagle and Su Li of University of California at Berkeley have conducted a survey of Americans on their attitudes towards Mobile Phones and privacy.  It is found here.

It is a very interesting report. It confirms what many interested in privacy law have known for a long time, despite what Facebook, Google and on line providers say for most people Privacy Matters.  That the law has not caught up with providing proper privacy protections is trite.  But the inertia in trying to bridge that gap is significant and chronic.

The conclusion of the report are worth reproducing.  They are:

The overall picture we developed from responses to this survey suggests that Americans both use a wide variety of mobile phone features and services that collect a rich set of personal information, and assign a strong privacy interest to that information. This includes the younger age cohorts who are most quickly adopting smartphones and their richest features.
At the same time, the market has produced few realistic, privacy-protective alternatives to the dominant, privacy-invasive online services.    Greater transparency and consent requirements could help, but only if consumers can realistically make decisions that align more closely with their preferences for privacy than many of the value propositions available in the market today.
Under our current regulatory regime, firms can and do cram questionable demands for contact lists and other sensitive information in disclosures. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that providing meaningful, descriptive notices is genuinely difficult in most mobile environments. Firms also sometimes condition rendition of service on disproportionate demands for personal data.
The gulf between private sector information demands and consumer preferences suggest that better disclosures and choice mechanisms alone will simply preserve the status quo. More aggressive interventions are necessary to create incentives for firms to reduce collection of personal information.
Particularly where privacy tradeoffs have not been made clear, consumers need Read the rest of this entry »

Wired reports that Google has paid $22.5million to the FTC in a fine over violation of a privacy consent decree.

The article provides:

Google has reportedly agreed to pay a record $22.5 million fine to the Federal Trade Commission to settle charges that it violated a privacy consent decree it signed with the agency, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

Google, which signed a 20-year privacy agreement with the FTC following the ill-fated Google Buzz, was investigated for using a sneaky, but well-known, tactic to bypass the strong default cookie settings on Apple’s Safari browser. Google defended the practice, saying it was simply trying to put a +1 button on Google Ads that could be used by signed-in Google users.

The proposed fine – one of the largest ever levied by the FTC – won’t hurt Google’s bottom line – at least not in the short term – but it’s a major PR loss for the search giant, which is battling with regulators in the States and in Europe over its privacy practices and accusations that it abuses its near-monopoly on search.

As privacy violations go, the Safari cookie workaround was rather minor, but little missteps by Google give authorities a way to publicly punish the company and try to force the company to be much more deliberate about privacy. Facebook Read the rest of this entry »

Telstra and privacy breaches goes together like Ginger and Fred and Bacon and Eggs.

The Australian ran a story, Telstra rings up a new privacy bungle about the privacy breach which while the Age in ‘Customer privacy is not negotiable’: Telstra boss admits leaking customer data shows that the problem is not a fleeting and passing issue.  There may be a cultural problem.

The article provides:

Telstra CEO David Thodey Read the rest of this entry »

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 »