Attachment to Australian Privacy Foundation Media Release on Big Brother Awards 2006
Another sorry year for privacy:
2006 Big Brother Awards Announced

"Freedom necessarily involves the right to determine who should have access to our personal information. The more our information is available to the prying eyes of government and corporate interests, the less freedom we enjoy."  
Laura Sigal – 2006 BBA judge

The dozens of nominations for the 2006 Australian Big Brother Awards illustrated a continued loss of freedom – mostly as a result of deliberate government policies.  The very governments we rely on for our privacy laws are themselves the worst intruders.

The awards for 2006 are as follows:

Greatest Corporate Invader

The 2006 ‘Orwell’ for Greatest Corporate Invader was shared by all Australian banks for continuing to send personal information to the worldwide financial messaging service SWIFT even after confirmation that the information was being provided to US national security agencies. European regulators have already found that European banks breached EU data protection laws by using SWIFT, and a complaint remains before the Australian Privacy Commissioner. 

Judges found the choice of runner-up too difficult and made two awards:

- Direct Health Solutions for providing an "absence management service" using call centre nurses to interrogate employees phoning in sick 

- PMP – a distributor of unaddressed junk mail for requiring all deliverers to wear a GPS unit for tracking their ‘walks’ in real time.

Dishonourable mentions as ‘corporate invaders’ also went to the websites of greypages.net and boonghunter.com, for circumventing very clear prohibition on the availability of ‘reverse search’ telephone directories.

Worst Public Agency or Official

The award for worst public agency or official went to Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison for the ‘Abolition of Financial Privacy’ legislation, masquerading as the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill (who could possibly object to that?).  The legislation turns thousands of bank tellers and other employees into amateur spies – with a legal obligation to report anyone who may be ‘acting suspiciously’ - which could be just because you have the flu or suffered a bereavement. The tens of thousands of reports remain secret, so you will never know if the government has you listed as a suspect. The Bill was subsequently passed by Parliament despite the government rejecting two thirds of the recommendations of a privacy impact assessment. 

The runner-up award in this category went to medical researchers at LaTrobe University, Victoria, for a sexual health research study which involved insensitive data collection from third parties. 
“This case illustrates the importance of human research ethics committees upholding ethical and legal privacy standards.  It also raises questions about the need for an independent oversight body in cases where researchers run amok,” said BBA judge Dr Roger Magnusson. 

Most Invasive Technology

The Most Invasive Technology award went to the NSW Department of Health for introducing the electronic health record system HealtheLink with only an opt-out for patients, overturning by Regulation the very clear opt-in requirement of the Health Privacy Law.  The initial trials are with  children and the elderly – the least likely to be in a position to object.

Dr Magnusson commented: 
“The failure to allow partitioning of sensitive health information, the lack of controls on authorized users, and failure to pilot both opt-in as well as opt-out systems could threaten public trust in what could be an immensely valuable tool for improving both individual and population health.”

People’s Choice

The People’s Choice award for 2006 went to Joe Hockey, federal Minister for Human Services, for the so–called ‘Access Card’ - a national ID card in disguise, for his refusal to release the privacy impact assessment on the Card, and for his rejection of key recommendations of his own Consumer and Privacy Task Force.

BBA judge Dean Wilson felt this well-deserved for the: 
“relentless campaign of disinformation and doublespeak surrounding the Access Card project.”

The NSW government’s HealtheLink project – already winner of the Most Invasive Technology award, was also runner up for People’s Choice.

Best Privacy Guardian

The judges unanimously awarded the 2006 ‘Smith’ for Best Privacy Guardian to barrister Lex Lasry QC and other defence lawyers for refusing to submit to stringent personal security clearances by ASIO when representing terrorist suspects as demanded by the Federal Attorney-General's department.

BBA judge Dean Wilson applauded the lawyers
“for a courageous stand against the wave of privacy corrosive legislation that has been enacted in the name of fighting terrorism.”

Runner up as Best Privacy Guardian was the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), for the successful prosecution of the company Clarity 1 under the Spam Act 2003, with fines of $5.5 million.  

“Spam is the public littering of the digital age.  Enforcing privacy laws gives them teeth and strengthens social norms around privacy. Full marks to the ACMA.” said BBA judge Roger Magnusson

An honourable mention went to Brent Carey, Senior Privacy Adviser in the Victorian Department of Justice, and whole-of-government Privacy Coordinator, who was nominated by several of the Victorian public servants he has trained and assisted for enthusiasm and dedication ‘above and beyond the call of duty’. 

Panel of Judges

Judges for the 2006 Big Brother Awards were:
•	Laura Sigal, Acting Director and Principal Solicitor, Communications Law Centre
•	Dean Wilson, Criminologist, Monash University, Melbourne
•	Dr Roger Magnusson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney
About the Awards

http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/Big Brother Awards are presented around the world by the national members and affiliated organisations of Privacy International to corporations, public officials and governments that have shown a blatant disregard for privacy, and those who have done the most to threaten personal privacy in their countries. There are also ‘positive’ awards for individuals and organisations who have made a major positive contribution to protecting the privacy of Australians.
The Australian Big Brother Awards, hosted by the Australian Privacy Foundation, were established in 2003.  Each year a panel of independent judges awards both ‘Orwells’ for privacy invaders and ‘Smiths’ for privacy guardians.
For more details and links to supporting materials see the next pages or the 2006 BBA home page, http://www.privacy.org.au/bba/2006/index.html 

Australian Big Brother Awards 2006 links – See www.privacy.org.au/bba/ 

Category	Awards	
‘Big Brothers’ or ‘Orwells’	
Lifetime Menace – 
for a privacy invader with a long record of profound disregard for privacy.	No award in 2006

Greatest Corporate Invader – 
for a corporation that has shown a blatant disregard of privacy.	Winner:  All Australian Banks – for continuing to send personal information to the worldwide financial messaging service SWIFT even after confirmation that it was being provided to US national security agencies  - see http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/SWIFT-AustbanksOFPC061012.pdf  (APF has lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner).  
Note: Subsequently the European Union has found that European banks breached EU data protection laws for their use of SWIFT. See http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/news/docs/PR_Swift_Affair_23_11_06_en.pdf	
	Joint Runner-up: PMP – unaddressed junk mail distributor – reported 30 October 06 to equip all deliverers to wear a GPS unit to allow their ‘walks’ to be tracked in real time
See  http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/junk-mails-spyinthesky/2006/05/22/1148150175310.html 	
	Joint Runner-up: Direct Health Solutions http://www.dhs.net.au/ 
For providing an "absence management service"  See article at http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Callcentre-nurses-busting-sickies/2006/11/11/1162661952331.html# 	
	Dishonourable mention:  Grey pages and boonghunter.com – for circumventing very clear prohibition on the availability of ‘reverse search’ telephone directories.	
Worst Public Agency or Official – 
for a government agency or official that has shown a blatant disregard of privacy.	Winner: Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison for the AML-CTF Bill 2006 – aka ‘Abolition of Financial Privacy’ legislation – see http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/AGs-AUSTRACreAML-CTFBill.pdf   Subsequent to the nomination, the legislation has passed and the government has rejected 66 of 96 recommendations in the Privacy Impact Assessment – see http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~88Privacy+impact+statement+aml-06.pdf/$file/88Privacy+impact+statement+aml-06.pdf  	

Category	Awards	
	Runner-up: LaTrobe University for a sexual health research study which involved insensitive third party data collection .  See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2006/1680645.htm#transcript	
	Dishonourable mention: South Australian Health Department for careless handling of childrens mental health records 
See http://sa.liberal.org.au/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4249 	
Most Invasive Technology – for a technology that is particularly privacy invasive.	Winner: NSW Health Department for introducing the electronic health record system HealtheLink with only an opt-out for patients, overturning by Regulation the very clear opt-in requirement of the Health Privacy Law 
See http://www.privacy.org.au/Campaigns/E_Health_Record/HealthElink.html for background, and http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20831274%5E15317%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html 	
People’s Choice – for the individual or organisation most frequently nominated by the public.	Winner: Joe Hockey, federal Minister for Human Services, for the so–called ‘Access Card’ - a national ID card system in disguise, and for his refusal to release the Privacy Impact Assessment, and his rejection of key recommendations of his own Consumer and Privacy Task Force. 
See http://www.privacy.org.au/Campaigns/ID_cards/HSAC.html  	
‘Smiths’ awards (for privacy protectors)	
Best Privacy Guardian – for a meritorious act of privacy protection or defence.	Winner: Defence lawyers for terrorist suspects who refuse to submit to ASIO checks
See http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1653791.htm 	
	Runner-up: ACMA – for successful prosecution of a major spammer – obtaining a conviction under the Spam Act 2003 + $5.5 million in fines against Wayne Mansfield and his company Clarity 1 (Australian 28/10/06) 
See http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6696/127/ 	
	Honourable mention: Brent Carey, Senior Privacy Adviser Vic DOJ, with some whole of government responsibilities, for particular enthusiasm and effectiveness in promoting privacy within the Victorian government. See http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/resources/file/eb592d4109cdc7d/Department_of_Justice_Information_Privacy_Policy_2006.pdf    (most of Brent’s work is not publicly visible)	
Lifetime Achievement – for provision of outstanding services to privacy protection.	No awards in 2006