The Law Reform Commission has produced a massive report with close to 300 recommendations for reform of the Privacy Act. It's significant that a piece of legislation this young is seen to need such wholesale changes.

George Williams had distilled some of the key issues for which I am grateful. What a calm rational contrast to the rant by Mirko Bagaric a few days ago.

I agree with Williams on the need to balance any new right to privacy with equivalent rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. All these freedoms need to be considered in relationship to one another so that one freedom is not seen to be out of kilter with others.

The media can't have it both ways - there can't be total freedom of the press but no right to privacy. Nor can there be a total right to privacy but no right to freedom of the press.

Getting the balance right will never be easy but we should give it our best shot.

It appears obviously to me that George Williams albeit being a Professor of law lacks proper understanding of what the (federal) Constitution is about when he stated;
QUOTE
Because Australia does not have a national charter of rights that equally protects fundamental rights such as speech and privacy
END QUOTE
.
As the Framers of the Constitution stated;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. CLARK.-
QUOTE
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE.
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I interpret what the Framers of the Constitution intended and amended with successful referendums and not what contemporary views might be by judges and others.
.
If one were to explore the true application of the constitution you will find, as I have published in my various books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues that the Human Rights provisions of the European Union in fact also apply to the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
On 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld my constitutional submissions against the Crown (Commonwealth) where they were all left UNCHALLENGED by the Crown.
.
The issue therefore is how to apply constitutional powers appropriately. For this we need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations, rather then political motivated views of a leader of a political party deciding what is or is not constitutionally applicable, or judges motivated by inappropriate considerations.

Having spent some time (with the co operation of my friends) trying to draw info on them from the web using basic instructions that can be found on the net, it became obvious that most people have a lot more on them easily available than they would be comfortable with.

The question is more than what information a company should be allowed to release, but what people should be allowed to use, as often one needs some inform

The most common invasion of privacy, which need not be IT related, is the sales call to your house. A no call list is an example of a control mechanism.

The fact that I want my number to be public so that friends and family can find it, does not mean that I want charities to call.

I would prefer that whilst companies should continue to strive to keep information private from those that are unsrupulous, public domain information should not be assumed to be free for any one to use as they wish.

Privacy protection is an illusion cherished by all who have yet to learn that most of our personal details regarding telephone numbers, email addresses, health and accident insurance details, our banking transactions, the money we have saved or invested in shares here and abroad, all our soul-barings via the Tax Office, our driving licences and all our breaches of law are all a matter of public record. In fact, these personal details that go to the heart of our cherished privacy requirements are being bought and sold in the market place. Telemarketers know who we are and what our needs are, must be or should be.What else is there that isnt on public display?

When they finally come to know where we crap,how we crap and if and when we crap then we are all well and truly in the poo!!
LOL!!
Privacy indeed.

socratease

The article treats all types of information equally. But from a practical there are really two types. There is the hidden camera / media type, which has all that icky free speech versus privacy debate associated with it. And then there is the information you hand over to business like your employer, your bank when getting a loan, and even Ticketek when you want to buy or sell something.

Unlike the other sort, how business information should be handled is clear cut. It should never leak, and for efficiencies sake it has to flow easily. No one wants to have to read every Tom, Dick and Harry's privacy statement just to see if handing over their details is safe. So it must legislated. The legislation will only work in practise if the cost of cleaning up the mess created by a leak is born by whoever stuffed up. So if a firm leaks your bank account details the account is syphoned, then the firm is responsible has to make good any losses. And that won't work unless it is mandatory to notify everyone effected by a leak.

To a nerd like me the other interesting distinguishing feature for information like this is how it is obtained. Business information is given freely - but you retain control of it. The other type is in the public domain. You get to decide whether you want to put it in the public domain, but once you do you loose control over it. Unlike business information the debate isn't about what the business can do with it once you hand it over, it's about how it gets into the public domain in the first place. Posting pictures from a hidden camera of you in the loo is a definite no-no, as is I presume riffling through your garbage while its on your property. What about when its on the curb? How about when you litter the side-walk?

They are tricky questions, but they don't apply to business information. That is why the two cases should be treated separately. Unfortunately the article didn't.

I think freedom of expression trumps privacy every time. I distinguish between several fields of privacy because it's not one whole issue as this report or debate seemingly makes it out to be. government->citizen, private enterprise->citizen, citzien->citizen are different.

If you are in a public space or easily observed from one, or sharing one with someone, you have no right to privacy.