The Phillipines Data Privacy Act takes effect today.  It was signed into law on 24 August (see articles here and here).

The Act’s homepage is found here.

A useful general article on the subject is found in the Phillipine examiner on 31 August 2012 which provided:

With the advances in information technology, privacy in personal data has become illusory. For the right price or with good connections, private information disclosed in confidence to companies or government offices can be made available to or accessed by interested parties.

This is the problem that is sought to be minimized, if not eliminated, by Read the rest of this entry »

The BBC reports in Draft Communications Data Bill: Powers may uncover ‘wrong targets’.  The bill was introduced to Parliament in June 2012.  It is found here.

It provides:

 Civil liberties campaigners describe the proposals as a “snooper’s charter”

Plans to monitor all Britons’ online activity risk uncovering “incompetent criminals and accidental anarchists” rather than serious offenders, the information commissioner has warned.

Ministers want to strengthen the law on internet data retention to help the police tackle security threats.

Christopher Graham said the “really scary people” could simply avoid detection by changing their behaviour.

But another leading watchdog said the proposed new powers were “essential”.

Under the government’s plans, currently being scrutinised by Parliament, service providers will have to store details of internet use in the UK for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it.

Records will include people’s activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming.

Ministers argue Read the rest of this entry »

In Norman South Pty Ltd & Anor v da Silva [2012] VSC 477 the Victorian Supreme Court considered the operation of a confidentiality clause and a claim for breach of confidence relying upon the principles set out in Giller v Procopets (misuse of private information).

FACTS

Dr Geoffrey Edelsten (“Edelsten”), the second plaintiff, and Ms Stacey da Silva (“da Silva”) met on the internet site www.sugardaddy.com.  They met on line, spoke by phone and met in March this year in Florida, USA [2]. Edelsten through the 1st plaintiff transferred $US5,000 to the defendant.  The plaintiffs claim the money was a loan paid pursuant to an agreement which had a confidentiality clause which provided:

The contents of this Agreement and any dealings including emails, texts or any other form of communication between Ms da Silva and Norman South Pty Ltd, and/or Geoffrey Edelsten, will remain confidential and shall not be divulged unless Norman South Pty Ltd and Geoffrey Edelsten waives this right by provision of a dispensation in writing.

The Defendant initially argued that the money was a gift however after cross examination of de Silva her counsel conceded the existence of an agreement [4]. The issue at final submission was whether the loan agreement contained the confidentiality agreement as alleged.

The plaintiffs pleaded a breach of contract and the equitable claim of a breach of confidence [5].  They sought damages, Read the rest of this entry »