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

[Irene Graham]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:50:58 +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:24:30 +1100
> Howard Lowndes <lannet at lannet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>>> In some ways, this is better than being able to bring a court
>>> action: it is cheaper, quicker and generally friendlier to the
>>> complainant.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I think this is more a flaw in the Privacy Act than in the complaints
> process. Nobody that I know thinks that the Privacy Act is very good.
> It is way too generous in the collections and disclosures that it
> allows. If the Aviation Act says that, then it is hard to see anything
> in the Privacy Act that would override it. At least that is a
> reasonable interpretation.

Yes. One of the gaping holes in the Privacy Act is that there is an 
exception to the prohibitions on use and disclosure without consent which 
states:

NPP 2.1 "(g) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under
law;" 

Obviously that would exclude from coverage by the Privacy Act anything 
"required or authorised" by the Aviation Act.

Irene