International Law

Discussion underway about privacy cause of action

The commissions have made a strong case for a cause of action, separate from breach of confidence and defamation and not aimed specifically at the media, although you wouldn't know that from most reports. And for legislation rather than the common law as the preferred path from here. Both also recognise the need for national consistency. But there are differences in the detail and the approach to balancing privacy and other rights that require considered analysis and discussion. What signifigance should be attached to the fact that NSW report would qualify the right by reference to the public interest in the public being informed about matters of public concern, but makes no mention of "allowing freedom of expression", the terms used by the ALRC? Or to the NSW Commission differing with the ALRC over the need to specify examples in the law, whether actionable conduct need give rise to offence or substantial offense in intruding on reasonable expectations of privacy, and to differences in the range of available defences?

Meanwhile, none of the following may ever give rise to a cause of action, but in the last two days we have reports of concerns in Sydney and Melbourne about extension of surveillance cameras; Telstra paying $100000 in fines for breaches by its call centres of the Do Not call register; and the Australian Communications and Media Authority finding Channel 10 breached the privacy rules in the Commercial Television Code of Practice (no power to impose a penalty but staff have received training!).

Full post as published by Open and Shut on August 21, 2009 (boomark / email).