June 2, 2011
The common refrain when one talks about the need for privacy rights are “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.” This of course reverses the onus on a persons/state’s rights to view or access one’s private information.
The Chronicle of Higher Education inWhy Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’ is an excellent review of the argument and the appropriate rebuttal.
May 27, 2011
The ALRC has released a report Managing Discovery: Discovery of Documents in Federal Courts.
The press release provides:
Advocating a facilitative approach Read the rest of this entry »
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has launched Principles on open public sector information at the Meta 2011 conference in Canberra.
The Principles provide a framework for government information management in Australia, setting out the central values of open public sector information – that it be freely available, easily discoverable, understandable, machine-readable and reusable. The Principles were developed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner through a process of public consultation, and draw on considerable work in Australia and overseas into best practice government information management.
The principles are:
May 26, 2011
In three rulings relating to group proceedings issued under Part 4 of the Supreme Court Act Forrest J considered an application to regularise proceedings and an application to dismiss on the basis of an abuse of process in Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd Ruling Nos 1 and, Cohen v State of Victoria & Ors (No 2) and in Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd Ruling Nos 2 an application for summary judgment and to strike out aspects of the statement of claim.
The claim in Matthews arose out of the Black Saturday bush fires. The firm Oldham Naidoo (“Naidoo”) issued proceedings in the name of a Mr Keane for damages against SPI amongst others. Naidoo did not have instructions from Mr Keanne to issue the proceedings in his name. Keane asked Naidoo to remove him as a plaintiff, something that did not happen for another year. Matthews then replaced Keane as representative plaintiff. After Maurice Blackburn took over conduct of the proceeding it brought Naidoo’s actions to the attention of the court and applied to regularise the proceedings. The defendants resisted the application and sought variously to strike out the claim and obtain summary judgment.
In Cohen Naidoo issued a group proceeding in Dr Cohen’s name without his knowledge. Naidoo sought but failed to find a person to be substituted for Cohen. There had been a substantial history of amendments to the statement of claim. The court considered the application to strike out the proceeding as an abuse of process.
In opposing the application to regularise the proceeding SPI submitted Read the rest of this entry »
May 4, 2011
The Minister for Privacy Awareness, Brendan O’Connor, put out a press release stating:
It’s now Privacy Awareness Week. The year’s theme is Privacy: It’s all about you.
The week aims to increase awareness amongst all Australians of the importance of being aware of possible privacy infringements and what steps you can take to protect your privacy.
“Privacy is becoming a greater concern for the average Australian. That’s largely due to the surge in online activity and the greater possibility for collection of our personal information.”
“While it may Read the rest of this entry »
April 21, 2011
According to digitallife today (amongst others) the iphone is being used to track people. The article provides:
Your iPhone has a hidden feature: It tracks and records your location constantly whether you want it to or not. What? You wish it wouldn’t do that without your knowledge or consent? Too bad, because there’s not much you can do about the tracking feature right now.
Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden, a pair of security researchers, recently discovered that iPhones — as well as 3G-enabled iPads — running iOS 4 constantly record and store their users’ locations in unencrypted files. These files are basically very long lists of latitude-longitude coordinates and timestamps, and they can be found on the devices themselves as well as within the software backups saved on users’ computers.
Needless to say this has animated privacy advocates in cyberspace.
April 18, 2011
It is hardly controversial to say the Australian press are deeply suspicious on a statutory or common law right to privacy. Journalists regard the defamation laws, even as amended, as unduly onerous. A privacy right overlay is generally regarded as an unnecessary intrusion into a press’ ability to report and investigate.
The Australian has taken a line against any statutory right to privacy. The Fairfax press has not been so determined. It is interesting then that Richard Ackland in the SMH last Friday argued against a statutory right to privacy while today in the Australian Norman Lucas argues for the development of a right to privacy. Neither is a particularly penetrating piece. That is perhaps understandable because it is hard to give justice to a complicated issue in 600 – 1000 words.
Ackland’s piece is an interesting summary of the phone hacking scandal in the UK and the litigation that has ensued. He takes a swing at Justice Eady for reasons which are not made clear. Probably because Eady pushed the right to privacy action along with the Mosley decision. He does refer to Giller v Procopets which he described thus:
In December 2008 the Victorian Court of Appeal said in a case called Giller v Procopets that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for breach of confidence as a result of her former partner showing a video of their sexual liaisons to her friends, family and employer.
Among other things, the court granted damages for mental distress, which was a big legal leap.
While the grant of damages for mental distress was significant it is hardly the big leap he describes. To set the bar so high as to require psychological damage would be to have any claim for privacy still born.
He concludes Read the rest of this entry »
An advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), advised that a Belgian court’s ruling to filter traffic that infringed copyrights belonging to members of artists’ rights agency Sabam (Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs) would violate rights guaranteed under EU law.In 2010 the Brussels Court of Appeal said it could not rule on the matter without first referring two questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Brussels has asked the ECJ to determine if delivering an injunction against ISPs forcing it to filter content suspected of copyright infringement contradicts a person’s right to privacy and protection of personal data. It also asked the ECJ if a national court should balance the extent with which it orders screening to take place with the impact it would have on those fundamental rights.
The advice (taken from translated extracts – complete translation is not available yet) provides:
“The installation of Read the rest of this entry »
April 5, 2011
The Court of Appeal has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide whether online publishing takes place where information is hosted or where it is read.
March 24, 2011
Last night the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill passed the Senate and therefore passed both houses of the Parliament. The Bill’s homepage is found here.
The Attorney General issued a press release which provides:
Attorney-General Robert McClelland today welcomed the passage of the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 through Parliament, which will encourages people to take genuine steps to resolve disputes before going to court.
“While most parties already attempt to resolve their disputes before litigating, it’s clear there are still some very costly and time consuming cases where this basic step has not occurred,” Mr McClelland said.
“The Civil Dispute Resolution Bill will Read the rest of this entry »