IP addresses and personal information (was Re: [LINK] Fwd: On Line Opinion - 16 February 2007)

[Adam Todd]

At 09:24 AM 24/02/2007, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>Alan L Tyree wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:37:48 +1100
>>Adam Todd <link at todd.inoz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I can tell you how and why it complies.
>>>
>>>Firstly the Privacy Act doesn't provide for Joe Citizen to take an
>>>action in the courts against a person or company that collects,
>>>holds, or releases personal or private information.

I didn't get Alans posting <shrug>

>>Technically true, but JC can make a complaint about an invasion of
>>privacy: s32 of the Privacy Act. The complaint is made to the Privacy
>>Commissioner or to the adjudicator under an approved Code.

Yes. However the Commissioner has a mandate not to take to cases of 
individuals, only classes of people affected by the same action.

I have a letter from the Commissioner and the AFP that clearly state this.

>>The Commissioner can award damages including damages for hurt feelings
>>or humiliation suffered by the complainant: s52.

Except, that, the Commissioner has to be willing to take it into the 
courts.  And as there is no basis in law in Australia for a tort of 
invasion to privacy, it's not going to be successful.

Although there are some people trying to get a Tort of Privacy up.  I will 
be entertaining this as an aspect of proceedings currently before the 
Supreme Court.  It's only a point to draw debate and meet the requirements 
of the three high court judges from a couple of years ago.

If I get some help specifically on that area of the proceeding, it may well 
be that a Tort for Privacy can be established in Australia.  But I doubt 
there will be anyone in the court room who gives a damn or anyone rushing 
to help me make it a point and win it hands down.

Would be nice if I didn't have to focus on that point.

>>In some ways, this is better than being able to bring a court action:
>>it is cheaper, quicker and generally friendlier to the complainant.

The Commissioner has to still take it before a Judge.  In any event it's 
appealable and such an appeal will, currently, be successful in the courts.

I think it would have to be a very extreme and unusual circumstance that 
would give rise to such a situation actually taking place.

It didn't even happen when Telstra published private names and numbers, 
including details of people who weren't Telstra customers, and had to hire 
security guards for my family for 4 months.

>This is true, but I found it to not be very successful.  I complained to 
>the OFPC about the manner in which CASA publish the details of aircraft 
>registrants.  The Aviation Act requires them to publish the detail and 
>allows them to do so "in such manner as they see fit".  I complained that 
>the manner that they chose (zip file on their web site 
>http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/register/datafiles.asp ) was too broad and 
>contrary to the spirit of the Privacy Act and that under the Aviation Act 
>they could have chosen a less intrusive method of dissemination.  My 
>complaint was rejected.

Because Hoawrd, you were the only one to complain :)  Get EVERY aviator to 
complain and the situation might change.  ALthough, technically the PC 
isn't the place to go.  You need to take this issue, as a class issue, 
before the ADT as it's Law that gives them the power "as they see fit" and 
that's Administrative.

The PC doesn't have power to conflict with other laws.