CooperMills

Posts Tagged ‘Privacy’

In what is believed to be an Australian first, the Federal Court of Australia has allowed service of legal proceedings by Twitter.

Justice Marshall of the Federal Court, sitting in Melbourne, directed that a 17 year old girl, who has been the centre of attention in the ‘nude photo’ proceedings brought by football player Sam Gilbert, be served with a copy of an injunction by email and by twitter. In his Order, His Honour Justice Marshall said:

Notwithstanding the provisions the rules of O37 r2, the Applicant have leave to serve this order on the First Respondent by sending a copy of the order to the First Respondent by email at the address [email address suppressed in this blog post] and posting a copy of the order on Twitter addressed to the First Respondent at the Twitter account its [account name suppressed in this blog post] together with notice that an email containing the order has been sent to the First Respondent.

In an interlocutory hearing scheduled for 2:15pm 24 December 2010, the Applicant, Mr Gilbert, is seeking the following relief from the Court:

(a)        The First Respondent forthwith delete permanently and destroy all copies of the Photographs or any other photograph, image or video sourced from the computer of the Applicant which is in her custody, possession or power, whether in printed or electronic format and including without limitation copies stored on an internet account or website, computer hard drive, memory stick, mp3 device, camera, phone or in any other electronic repository or format.

(b)        Within 14 days after service of this order, the First Respondent make, file and serve an affidavit deposing to the steps taken to comply with the foregoing herein.

Earlier this year an Australian Court allowed service of proceedings via social networking site Facebook.

Typically these unusual methods of service are referred to as  ‘substituted service’, where a person cannot be served through traditional means such as by post or personal, as they cannot be located or are avoiding service. All Australian Courts have broad powers allowing substituted service.

Tags: Federal Court, IT Law, Media Law, Privacy, Privacy Law, Twitter
Posted in Domain law and domaining, General, IT Law, Privacy | Comments Off

Google has given undertakings to the Australian Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis, after the completion of her investigations into Google’s inadvertent collection of unsecured Wi-Fi data from private residencies around Australia, whilst collecting images for Google Street View.

Google has given the following undertakings:

-          That it will publish an apology to Australians for its collection of unsecured WiFi data in its official Australian Blog

-          That it will provide a privacy impact assessment (PIA) on any new Street View data collection activities its undertakes in Australia

-          This is will provide a copy of these PIAs to the Commoners Office

-          That it will regularly consult with the Privacy Commissioner about personal data collection activities arising from significant product launches in Australia.

The undertakings come after the Commissioner was satisfied that the information collected by Google breached the Privacy Act 1988.

The Commissioner was unable to impose a sanction on Google due to having already initiated an investigation. This has prompted the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to make an inquiry into Australian privacy laws. This may prompt the government into taking action to strengthen the enforcement regime.

Tags: IT Law, Privacy, Privacy Law, Privacy Lawyer, technology law, technology lawyer
Posted in General, Privacy | Comments Off

Google has announced the beta launch of  ‘interest based’ advertising on their partner sites and YouTube. Will this lead to better advertising ?

Interest based advertising is where advertising content is targeted at internet users based on current and past web surfing history. Typically this is achieved by using ‘cookies’, which are small files stored on the user’s computer, which contain browsing history data. This method of serving advertisements differs to Google’s traditional ‘keyword’ or ‘content’ based advertising, which relies on the keywords or website content to target advertising.

Google believes that:

“…..there is real value to seeing ads about the things that interest you. If, for example, you love adventure travel and therefore visit adventure travel sites, Google could show you more ads for activities like hiking trips to Patagonia or African safaris.“

Criticisms of online advertising sometimes arise from poor quality leads due to the deficiencies in reaching an advertisers target audience. Google’s new interest based advertising may lead to higher quality leads for advertisers and more relevant advertisements for web surfers.

No sooner than Google’s announcement, many people have come out criticising interest based advertising as a threat to privacy, as it relies on tracking the websites an end user visits.

Google claims that it has taken 3 important measures to ensure user choice and privacy, these are:

• Transparency – Users will able to click on advertisement labels to obtain more information about how advertisements are service and what information is used. Google also proposes to expand this in the coming year;
• Choice – Users will have access to the  Ads Preferences Manager tool which lets them “view, delete, or add interest categories associated with your browser so that you can receive ads that are more interesting to you.“
• Control – Users will be able to opt out of interest based advertising. Google have take some significant steps to ensure this by designing a plug in for web browsers to maintain the users choice.

We think Google’s interest based advertising may prove to give advertisers more qualified and better quality leads, while users will now see advertisements which are more relevant to their interests – resulting in a better user experience. Only time will tell, but at least Google has thought through the choice and privacy issues, and it appears to us as IT Lawyers, that they have implemented a sensible and effective process to ensure this.

Tags: Google Advertising, interest based advertising, IT Law, IT Lawyers, online advertising, Privacy, Privacy Law, Privacy Lawyers, technology law
Posted in Domain law and domaining, IT Law, Privacy | Comments Off

In the shadow of the Victorian bush fires, regulations create a new exception to the use and disclosure offences under Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Part 13 of the Act requires that Carriers, CSPs, their employees and contractors protect the confidentiality of protected information such as the content of communications, the affairs and personal particulars of people and namely the integrated public number database. The offences under this part are contained in sections 276 to 278, and can include a penalty of imprisonment against offenders.

s292(1) of the Act allows regulations to be made that provides for circumstances in which there may be exceptions to the offences under sections 276 to 278.

Although the Act already allows disclosure of documents and information in cases of threat to life or health (s287) in very limited situations, the Telecommunications Amendment Regulations 2009 (No.1) provides for an exception for the purpose of:

1. preventing or lessening a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of a person or a class of persons; or
2. ensuring that effective arrangements are in place to deal with such threats

The Explanatory Statement to these new Regulations states that:

The primary purpose of the Regulations is to allow emergency management authorities in each state and territory to obtain phone numbers and personal particulars (including any unlisted telephone or any address) of all the database listings for their respective state or territory for the purpose of ensuring effective arrangements are in place to deal with serious and imminent threats to life and health of persons. Such threats may emanate from natural disasters (such as bushfires and floods), criminal acts and non natural disasters (such as industrial accidents).

The Regulations permit disclosure of either (a) the information in an integrated public number database; or (b) a document that consists or relations to information contained in the integrated public number database.

Before disclosure is permitted there are 3 requirements that an authorised person must meet, these are:

1. certify to Telstra that the disclosure and use of the information is required for the two permitted purposes (as set out above); and
2. identify the recipient of the information; and
3. provide Telstra with an undertaking that (a) any disclosure or use by a person other than Telstra or an employee of Telstra will be fore the same purpose; and (b) reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that any disclosure or use by a person other than Telstra or an employee of Telstra will not adversely affect the operation of Telstra telecommunications network;

There are also a number of safeguards requiring destruction of information when no longer required, and authority for the Privacy Commissioner to monitor the use of the information or documents.

We recently received an emergency communication from the Victoria Police, which we presume took advantage of these new Regulations, by way of an SMS warning of:

Extreme weather in Vic expected Mon night & Tues. High wind & fire risk. Listen to Local ABC Radio for emergency updates. Do not reply to this msg.

This Regulation is a welcome yet long over due regulatory development.

Tags: isp law, ISP Lawyers, Privacy, Telco Law, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers
Posted in ISP and Telco Law, Privacy | Comments Off