[LINK] Super fund security breach lands good Samaritan in hot water

[Richard Chirgwin]

Not filtered, overlooked.

RC

On 19/10/11 5:34 PM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 16:43 +1100 19/10/11, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
>> The NSW and Federal Privacy Commissioners are not amused and will be
>> making further inquiries:
>> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/super-sloppy-first-state-customers-kept-in-the-dark-20111019-1m7g6.html
> See my comments of 09:42 - to the effect that whether or not the
> actions of the vigilante, or the rotten design of the bank, were in
> breach of privacy laws is prettymuch irrelevant.
>
> The NSW PC'er may end up saying something reasonable at least,
> whereas the federal PC'er sees his function as being to absolve the
> miscreant organisation, so his conclusion will not only be delayed,
> and based solely on information provided by the organisation, but
> will also be weak as dishwater.  (Well, I'm only speaking on the
> basis of all previous precedents, so I guess I *could* be wrong).
>
> My other comments don't seem to have been factored into the
> discussion this afternoon either, e.g. re mens rea being a feature of
> the NSW Crimes Act provisions (and I believe these are a rendition of
> the model code, and hence likely to be in other States' laws as well).
>
> Maybe my emails are filtered out by more people's agents than I thought ...
>