Australian ‘Big Brother Awards’ 2010-11
Nomination Form

The purpose of these Awards is to publicise privacy-abusive behaviour.  A responsible approach is adopted, and the decisions are based on evidence, not mere ‘uninformed opinion’.

For a nominee to be considered, they need to be identified, their acts or behaviour that warrants an Award needs to be briefly described, and some evidence needs to be provided, preferably both some originating with th nominee itself, and some from other sources such as the media.

The organisation or person you nominate must  be:
•	in or associated with Australia
•	responsible for a truly outstanding abuse (or defence) of privacy.

The deed or behaviour for which they are nominated should have at least partially been put into practice – they lose points for just planning or announcing something! 

Please submit your nominations before 30 November 2010 via email to bba@privacy.org.au with the  subject: BBA Nomination. Use as much space as needed .  A postal address is available on request.  

Further details about BBA2010-11 are available at http://www.privacy.org.au/bba/.

A.	Name of Nominee [one nominee per form]:
The nominee must be clearly identified. Please make sure you have the correct name of the organisation or person, accurately spelled, so you are nominating the right person.

B.	Select an Award Category [tick ONE box for this nomination]:

Privacy Abuser Categories for an “Orwell” Award -

[   ]	Worst Corporate Invader – for a corporation that has shown a blatant disregard for privacy.
[   ]	Worst Public Agency or Official – for a government agency or official that has shown a blatant disregard for privacy.
[   ]	Most Invasive Technology – for a technology that is particularly privacy invasive.
[   ]	Boot in the Mouth – the ‘best’ (most appalling!) quote on a privacy-related topic.

Privacy Defender Categories for a "Smith" Award -

[   ]	Best Privacy Guardian – for a meritorious act of privacy protection or defence.
[   ]	Lifetime Achievement – for provision of outstanding services to privacy protection.

C.	Describe what they did
Write a short description of what they did that was so bad (or good), Be specific: include names, dates, places, program names, official terms, and preferably web links to official and media references with more details.

D Evidence of the Actions and References
Please provide documentation from the nominee, if possible. Any public statement the nominee may have used to explain or justify the action or behaviour is useful. Also include copies of, references to, or images of, press reports of the nominee's deed, and particularly Internet addresses of web site reports which confirm that they have actually done what you think they did. Rumour and speculation are not enough. Include a reasonable number of these references and links with your nomination.

E.  Why the Nominee Deserves the Award:
1.	Scope of the Impact
a.	Number of others affected
b.	Geographical area (eg one State).
2.	Seriousness of the Impact:
a.	Who was affected or who did the Nominee disadvantage or advantage (eg  those least able to help themselves)
b.	What was the effect (eg financial disadvantage, denial of service, exposure to risk). 
Scope

Seriousness

F. Other Comments