[LINK] 'Public' may still be private [was: Google StreetView Launched in Oz]

[Adam Todd]

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 -