Dated November 2002
This document is at http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/SubmnOFPCQ&A0212.html
The Australian Privacy Foundation[1] regrets that it is unable to send a representative to the meeting on 5 December. The Foundation would like the views in this paper to be taken into account and distributed to all interested parties.
The Foundation generally believes that the draft Information Sheet is a welcome level of guidance, and makes a good job of explaining some complex issues clearly and concisely. Some specific comments follow. Where we do not comment it should not be assumed that we are indifferent - in most cases we support the position taken and would oppose any suggestion that it be weakened or removed.
We suggest that the Information sheet be renamed "Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about ... ". FAQs have become a standard and familiar form of presentation for this sort of guidance.
Para 2. We assume the paper deliberately avoids advising Commonwealth agencies collecting personal information that is publicly available but query whether this is necessary given that the IPP obligations are very similar to the NPPs?
Para 9. While this is correct, it is a significant weakness in the scheme of the Act and we are pleased to see that para 27 provides guidance on good practice notwithstanding the technical exemption.
Para 19 (and 25). We believe that the silence of the Electoral Act on use of printed rolls is an oversight that is inconsistent with the policy underlying controls on the same information in electronic form. This reflects the widely acknowledged evolution of these provisions as a series of `temporary fixes', and need for a more comprehensive review which would almost certainly extend controls to the printed rolls (as the recent revision of the Victorian Electoral Act has done). For this reason too we welcome the best practice advice at para 27.
Para 26 & 27 - We think the advice about use of directories in electronic form (Disk or CD-ROM ) could be clearer to emphasise that any incorporation into an organisation's IT systems would be likely to bring it under the Act. Only separate `look-up' of a stand alone directory product would avoid `inclusion in a record'.
Para 27 - Tips para 3 - This advice is correct but reflects a major weakness in the scheme of NPP 2. We are pleased to see the best practice advice about opt-out.
Para 33 - We believe that `minimum' steps should also include specific notice at the point of first contact with the individual. We welcome the support for this later in para 40 but would like to see it built into or at least referred to in this `minimum steps' paragraph, which would then carry through into other references to the minimum (eg in paras 35 & 36).
Para 34 - the criteria listed are good but in addition we suggest another one: `to be used for purposes to which a significant proportion of individuals might reasonably be expected to object.' This would cover uses which, whilst not detrimental, are known (eg: from research cited earlier) to be objectionable to many people.
Para 35 - while most informed parties might agree with your example of property valuations, it is worth noting in the context of your `Tip' that a Victorian Minister was apparently taken aback to find that his house valuation was public! One key to reasonable expectations is the notice given by the compilers and publishers of publicly available information, and a cross reference to your Q.14 might be useful here.
Para 37 - it is not clear if you are suggesting that consistency with purpose overrides reasonable expectation, such that the minimum steps would be sufficient in these examples even if individuals were not aware.
Para 42 - We suggest the example of `blacklists' (such as tenancy databases) be given to support the point made in the last sentence.
Para 53 - While we generally support the range of steps suggested here, consideration should perhaps be given to the option of inviting individuals to agree to wider secondary uses. Provided this was a genuine choice, with no coercion, a significant number of individuals might agree to specified secondary uses which could satisfy some of the commercial interests who will otherwise oppose any restrictions.
Go to the APF Home Page.
Created: 7 February 2003
Last Amended: 15 February 2003
APF thanks its site-sponsor: