Privacy Laws and Australia

Confidentiality

Intruding into private lives of citizens, even though these people might appear as leading very 'public lives'.

Bodies of law protect people's 'right to privacy.' However, no tort of privacy in Australia.

Right to privacy has not received a great deal of attention until situations like the death of Princess Diana.

Given the rise to several privacy laws in the UK and other European countries.

No common law for right to privacy in 'Australia.'

The Australian Law Reform Commission, recommends that Australia should have a privacy law that identifies several types of invasions; interference with a person's home or family, subjecting someone to unauthories surveillance, interference with or disclosure of an individual's private communications.

ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Australia is a signatory to the ICCPR which in article 17 the ICCPR states

Article 17 mandates the right of privacy.^[50] This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity, thereby nullifying prohibitions on homosexual behaviour,^[51] however, the wording of this covenant's marriage right (Article 23) excludes the extrapolation of a same-sex marriage right from this provision.^[52] Article 17 also protects people against unlawful attacks to their honor and reputation. Article 17 (2) grants the protection of the Law against such attacks ^[50]

The Australian Government accepts the principal right to privacy. 

Privacy in Australia works on the common law principle - If there is no precedent in Australia what do we do? What does this imply in terms of privacy.

Privacy Act 1988: Confers a degree of enforcement power upon the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court to protect privacy but focuses on private information held by government departments and large corporations.Designed to protect a consumer from having their personal details released.

Do we need a privacy tort? - Who would have predicted there would be serious talk of a statutory privacy tort in Australia, giving private individuals who feel their privacy as been breached the right to sue? But then again, who would have predicted a phone hacking scandal to engulf the Murdoch press?

Define: Tort is a common law, a civil wrong.

If you trespass you're liable for trespass if: You enter land or premises without the consent of the occupier, you remain there when permission to be there has been withdrawn, you place an object like a listening device or camera on someone else's land or in their premises.

Nuisance - Very limited area of law - Protects an occupier's use of enjoyment of his or her land from unreasonable interferences. Injuction can be granted or damages, a nuisance has to be persistent and annoying for it to be actionable.

Obscenity and Decency

• As much an issue of public taste as it is of privacy. 
• Good taste / bad taste v.right or wrong. 
• Public test. 
• Decision rest with the publisher and editor rather than the journalist. 
• A range of provision apply to obscene or indecent material. 
• Each state and territory has laws restricting this kind of publication. 

The Confidentiality of a Child - The right to privacy for children is in the best interests of the child partly because as they grow, they will learn to use their rights properly. Read A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Exercise find a story where a journalist has faced jail time due to not revealing a source...  Fox News Reporter Facing Jail For Protecting Source - Mainstream Media Yawns, Raising Questions Of Liberal Bias

Summary of article: US Journalist Jana Winter was assigned by Fox news to cover the aftermath of "The Dark Night Rises” shooting. A few days after the incident Winter revealed information about the alleged killer James Holmes who had sent a notebook to a University of Colorado psychiatrist.

The allegations is that Winter's story was based on information obtained from unnamed law enforcement sources. Furthermore a county judge had previously issued a gag order in the days following the shooting.

The defense argued to the judge that it was necessary to force the Fox News reporter to disclose her sources.

"Sources that were, according to Mr. Holmes (the offender)’ defense attorneys, prevented from discussing the case pursuant to a gag order issued by County Judge William Sylvester."

Unlike the past travails of reporters put in this difficult position, few media outlets—with the exception of Fox News and some conservative blogs—are reporting the story. Never mind that each of these ignoring media services were all to willing to re-report the story after Winter broke it via Fox News.