[LINK] 'Public' may still be private [was: Google StreetView Launched in Oz]
swilson at lockstep.com.au
Tue Aug 5 13:09:26 EST 2008
IANAL but for the billion dollar entity to provide personally
identifiable data to any other entity, regardless of size, would still
be a violation of the Use & Disclosure principle, as far as I can tell.
But we digress. My point was to explore whether or not "public" data can
still be counted as private?
Adam Todd wrote:
> At 02:12 05/08/2008, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> Stilgherrian 5/08/2008 wrote:
>> > I'm going to ask the question: Exactly how is a photograph of a house
>> > on a street an invasion of privacy, when it isn't linked to any
>> > individual?
>> I agree photographing my house might not feel like an "invasion of
>> privacy" but if my name gets associated with the photo, then the letter
>> of the privacy law is clear.
>> I'm paraphrasing, and combining a number of pertinent privacy principles
>> here: the law is that any collecting of personally identifiable
>> information without the associated person's knowledge, for purposes that
>> that person has not been made aware of, is generally prohibited.
> Steve you neglected to mention the $3million turn over caveat.
> If the party whom is collecting personal information has a turn over of
> less than $3 million per year, then they are exempt from the Privacy Act :)
> Woops did I just publish that?
> So $BILLION company sets up a $1500 SHELF company with a trust as a
> share holder. That means it's protected.
> SHELF gets given data from $BILLION company and it's random partners.
> SHELF processes data, combining it into usable informational data.
> SHELF gets paid a small fee to sell the information back, ensuring the
> fee does not exceed $3 million a year.
> No law is breached, dozens of companies can share their collective data,
> and improve their databases.
> - NEXT -
More information about the Link