[LINK] RFC: Privacy and the Media

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Roger writes,

> The Australian Privacy Foundation has published a Policy Statement on 
> Privacy and the Media. See: www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Media-0903.html
> 
> Feedback would be appreciated (especially of the constructively 
> negative kind, of course).
>
> The APF has *not* adopted what might be called a 'strong privacy'
> position.

Yes, it reads as a reasoned, well considered and balanced APF Statement.

It is difficult to see where any relevant party might find any problems
& unjustified difficulties with adoption and implementation of policies
built around this statement. Of course all parties will need to develop
their own more specific, and articulated, industry & company guidelines
around such an APF policy statement, but it does appear to offer a firm 
underpinning for any & all appropriate additional industry specificity.

This would appear largely due to the open and light-handed approach and
the authors and the APF is to be congratulated for the logical approach.
Obviously, acceptance, industry specific development and implementation
seems more likely as a result of such 'non-threatening' policy first-up.

Just one point arises for this writer and that is one would believe the
section dealing with minors, in particular, needs more attention. These
are citizens whom in some respects are most vunerable to privacy issues
simply due to lack of knowledge & experience re any lack of candour. Eg
ask any child their full name and address and they'll probably tell you
and, are also likely to relate intense family issues at the drop of the
proverbial. Eg teachers are often innocently informed of family secrets 
that are often too-much-information. My point is, that whereas mentally
handicapped people may also have similiar 'open-perspectives' they will
lees-often frequent, for example, e-forums, where candour 'does' matter.

In other words, media need to be aware 'not to ask' because kids answer.
Hence, one might hope, the APF might somewhat strengthen policy re kids.

For example two post-scripts are the only policy mention made of minors:

"CAVEAT. Special care is needed in relation to categories of people who 
are reasonably regarded as being vulnerable, especially children and the 
mentally disabled, but depending on the circumstances, other groups such 
as homeless people and the recently bereaved."

And: "8.20 Broadcasters should pay particular attention to the privacy of 
people under sixteen. They do not lose their rights to privacy because, 
for example, of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of 
events in their schools."  


Aside from that, it appears to this commentator a most useful statement.


> Open information flows are the lifeblood of democracy and freedoms. 
> What we're arguing for is much clearer definition of what 'the public 
> interest' is that justifies privacy intrusions..
> 
> There's a chance that we may be able to make genuine progress with 
> the proposals in the Policy Statement.

Very good Roger, and the Australian Privacy Foundation. I wish you well.


> -- 
> Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
> 
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
>                     Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
> mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/
> 
> Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
> Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
> Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
--

Cheers R/APF
Stephen Loosley
Member, Victorian
Institute of Teaching