The Office of the Privacy Commissioner tabled its annual report yesterday.  Privacy complaints rose 27% in 2011.  The annual report is found here.  The office’s media release says:

Privacy complaints made under the Victorian Information Privacy Act 2000 rose 27% in 2010-11 during which Privacy Victoria received 2,575 enquiries, including 345 that could potentially become a formal complaint. Of those 345 enquiries, 21% (73) were made into complaints after the complainant had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter direct with the organisation complained of. This is the highest number of new complaints received in a reporting period since the establishment of the office in 2001.

Alleged inappropriate use and disclosure Read the rest of this entry »

In the Federal Court decision yesterday in Smallbone v New South Wales Bar Association [2011] FCA 1145 (6 October 2011) is a topical decision for barristers interested in the silk selection process.  More importatntly it is an important decision on the operation of the Privacy Act.

It has drawn some interesting coverage in the press including the Australian’s David Smallbone’s win could change silk selection process which provides:

AFTER his Federal Court victory yesterday over the NSW Bar Association, barrister David Smallbone believes fundamental change to the system of selecting senior counsel is inevitable.

And because of the nature of his win, Mr Smallbone Read the rest of this entry »

The lads at Facebook have not been all that caught up with privacy issues of its users. They seem to take the view that being being wildly popular is the ultimate answer to any concern, trivial or major. A modern day “vox populi vox dei”. Consequently Facebook finds itself on the wrong side of privacy issues on a fairly regular basis.
In the Australian today there is another report of a continued cavalier approach to privacy.

Here is the report in toto:

FACEBOOK is facing its most serious privacy issue to date, with claims that it is collecting user’s information after they have logged out.

The issue, raised by Australian born blogger Nik Cubrilovic, has sparked a major privacy debate on the internet overnight, and follows Cubrilovic’s demonstration on his blog of Facebook keeping its browser cookies active after a user has logged out of the social network.

“Logging out of Facebook Read the rest of this entry »

The Australian has been the most active media outlet on the question of a statutory right to privacy.  It’s coverage has been generally hostile and some of its writers has been vociferously critical and sometimes to the point of being addled.

First out of the blocks is Proposed law to award privacy invasions up to $150,000 damages which provides:

CITIZENS claiming their privacy had been invaded would be in line for damages of up to $150,000 without having to prove economic loss under a proposed blueprint for new privacy laws.

But the Gillard government has committed to protecting freedom of expression and public interest reporting if it creates a legal right to sue for serious privacy invasions.

A discussion paper released today examines Read the rest of this entry »

The Government’s long expected discussion paper on a serious invasion of privacy has been released.

It is found at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/privacy/causeofaction/

The press release provides:

Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information Brendan O’Connor today released an Issues Paper discussing the Australian Law Reform Commission’s proposal for legislation to allow Australians to take civil legal action if their privacy has been seriously invaded.

The ALRC recommended introducing a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy following its 28-month investigation of Australia’s privacy laws. The New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform Commissions have since made similar proposals.

The ALRC proposal would allow individuals to seek a remedy from a court where their private life has been seriously invaded in a way that ordinary Australians would consider to be highly offensive.

Currently, where Read the rest of this entry »

In the Australian today there is an interesting piece on a finding of a privacy breach by the Professional Services Review.  It provides:

PATIENT privacy has been compromised in the federal government’s bid to control health spending, with a key agency found to have illegally merged data from Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

In a case likely to fuel privacy concerns over planned electronic health records, the embattled Professional Services Review has been ordered to add computer system and practice changes to a growing list of reforms.

The PSR investigates Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Attorney General has released a White paper on Cyber crime and space.  Titled, not surprisingly and a little kitchly, Cyber white it is a huge document (found here).  Submissions are open until 15 November 2011.

The joint press release states:

The Gillard Government today invited members of the public and businesses to have their say on the development of Australia’s first ever Cyber White Paper.

The Government released a public discussion paper as part of the development of the Cyber White Paper, which invites submissions on a range of issues regarding the importance of cybersp Read the rest of this entry »

Out-law.com has noted that Facebook has changed its privacy settings.

It provides:

In today’s Age, Melbourne Water apologises for spying on pipeline protest farmer, there is a very interesting article about Melbourne Water breaching a protester’s privacy.  It states:

A year-long legal battle ended yesterday when the water authority agreed to publish an apology to 63-year-old Yea farmer Jan Beer, a lead campaigner against the north-south pipeline. The apology will be published on its website and in two regional Victorian newspapers next month.

The apology says in part: ”Melbourne Water acknowledges that the collection of her personal information has caused Mrs Beer to feel that she was being continually monitored Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court undertook a detailed consideration of trusts in Byrnes v Kendle.  While the court unanimously upheld the appeal there are 3 separate recisions for decision; French CJ, Gummow and Haynes and Heydon and Crennan.

Facts

The facts are best summarised at paragraphs [1] – [5] of French CJ’s decision.  Martin Byrnes and his mother Joan Byrnes (“Mrs Brynes”) alleged breach of trust by her estranged husband Clifford Kendle (“Kendle”) regarding the collection of ranks from an occupant of a property owned by him in which she had a half share. Legal title to the property was held by Kendle. In 1997 he signed an acknowledgement of trust declaring that he held a half interest in the property as tenant in common upon trust for Mrs Byrnes.  Kendle let the property to his son from 2002 – 2007. The weekly rental was $125. Kendle collected a total of $250 during this period and took no steps to collect any arrears.

The primary judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as to the breach of trust. He found that Kendle was not a trustee because he lacked intention to create a trust, relying upon the High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Stamp Duty v Jolliffe. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia found that Kendle was not subject to the duty that would normally be imposed on the trustee to rent the trust property.

Decision

Construction of trust

Each reason for decision took issue with Jolliffe. French CJ Read the rest of this entry »