Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/2000/RRE.privacy.legislation..html
Content
| | | | --- | --- | | Red Rock Eater Digest | Most Recent Article: Sat, 12 May 2001 |
[RRE]privacy legislation in Australia
``` [Forwarded with permission and reformatted.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
---
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:53:48 +1100
From: Roger Clarke
The Australian Attorney-General released a document on 14 Dec 99 which contained Key Provisions of the Private Sector Privacy Bill that he proposes to table in the House in February. Submissions were invited by 17 January 2000.
My conclusion is that the Draft Bill is absolutely appalling. Rather than a privacy protection instrument, it is a Bill for the Legitimisation of Hitherto Unauthorised Abuses of Personal Data.
The Abstract and the URL for my detailed Submission are below; also an extract from the Australian Computer Society's submission.
SUBMISSION to the Commonwealth Attorney-General Re: 'A privacy scheme for the private sector: Release of Key Provisions' of 14 December 1999
Roger Clarke
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/PAPSSub0001.html
Abstract
The draft Bill fails to satisfy the needs of the public, because it contains large numbers of exemptions and exceptions, and legitimises many unreasonable uses of personal data. As a result, it would actually reduce privacy protections rather than enhance them. The draft Bill also fails to satisfy the needs of the private sector, because it is long and complex, and fails to encourage the confidence of consumers in their dealings with companies. The Bill needs to be very substantially revised, or withdrawn and re-written.
Contents Introduction Background The Inadequacies To Be Addressed 1. Inflexible Legislation Rather Than Codes 2. Failure to Require Consultation and Participation 3. Exemptions from the Protection Regime 4. Exceptions within the Protection Regime 4.1 Weaknesses in the Privacy Commissioner's Original NPFHPI 4.2 Additional Weaknesses in the 'National Privacy Principles' 5. Further Specific Weaknesses in the Principles 6. Inadequate Code Approval Criteria 7. No Compulsory Complaints-Handling Mechanism Within Organisations 8. Lack of Oversight, Sanctions and Enforcement 9. Failure to Address Outsourced Government Operations 10. Failure to Provide 21st Century Protections Conclusions References
The Australian Computer Society's Submission says:
"The Society's Economic, Legal and Social Implications Committee has considered the 'Key Provisions' document, together with the analysis prepared by one of the Society's longstanding Fellows, Dr Roger Clarke, which is available at:
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/PAPSSub0001.html
"The Committee agrees with the critique in that document. It suitably expresses our serious concern about inadequacies in the draft Bill. In its current form, the Bill seems to contemplate a reduction in privacy protection, and even appears to sanction privacy-invasive practices. In our respectful opinion the Bill needs to be very substantially revised to address the deficiencies identified in Dr Clarke's paper. The Australian Computer Society would welcome the opportunity to participate in the development of a revised Bill".
Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916 mailto:Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Fellow Department of Computer Science The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Information Sciences Building Room 211 Tel: +61 2 6249 3666 ```
| | | --- | | ProcessTree Network TM For-pay Internet distributed processing. | | Advertising helps support hosting Red Rock Eater Digest @ The Commons. Advertisers are not associated with the list owner. If you have any comments about the advertising, please direct them to the Webmaster @ The Commons. |