[LINK] privacy protection for phone number database

Adam Todd link at todd.inoz.com
Sat Oct 21 12:24:55 AEST 2006

At 06:00 AM 21/10/2006, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>Adam Todd wrote:
>>Yes but WHY do you have to pay a FEE to not be listed!  That's absurd!
>>It's almost like a penalty for wanting to have a private number.  "Oh you 
>>want to be secret huh?  You can pay for that."
>>When I agree to purchasing a telephone service I do NOT agree to my name 
>>and address being published.  It's NOT optional.
>Think about this.  You are required by law to register to vote, with 
>all  it's detail, but their is nothing in the law that says that someone 
>can't use the electoral list for purposes other than that for which is 

See yet another resource for obtaining Names, Date of Birth, Address and 
Occupation.  And with little more effort, the name of a partner, their date 
of birth and ... so how the hell do Telstra and all these Government 
Agencies convince us on the basis that Name, Address and DOB is "security" 
for identification?  My goodness, anyone who was willing to give that 
information as identification ot me I'd be suspicious of!

No, you are required by Law to turn up to Vote, you are not required by law 
to Register!   You are "entitled by law" to register.

The constitution doesn't provide for a law to mandate registration.

>In fact there's a company, PacificMicro or similar, that do provide, at a 
>price, reverse electoral lists.  There was a court case a few years back 
>that established this lack of privacy.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act particularly around section 91A details 
lawful use of the rolls.

But there is the question that once a roll has expired, is it still a legal 
document protected by the law?  That hasn't been tested in Court 
yet.  Based on the way the law is written, I'd say that once a roll has 
been "updated" the prior roll is no longer legally protected.

More information about the Link mailing list