1 / 19

Reporting and remedies - Black holes of privacy

Reporting and remedies - Black holes of privacy. Graham Greenleaf ‘What use are Privacy Commissioners?’ 9 September 2003 See http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/ for updates / details. Overview - two black holes. What evidence is there that Commissioners do their job?

nolan-coffey
Download Presentation

Reporting and remedies - Black holes of privacy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reporting and remedies - Black holes of privacy Graham Greenleaf ‘What use are Privacy Commissioners?’ 9 September 2003 See http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/ for updates / details

  2. Overview - two black holes • What evidence is there that Commissioners do their job? • Most important function: resolving complaints • Is there accountability for public monies spent? • Outcomes of complaints - fair remedies? • Does anyone get a remedy? • Reporting complaints - what law is applied? • Track record of Asia-Pacific Commissioners • Some practical improvements

  3. Outcomes - Does anyone get a remedy? • Evidence available? • √ Annual Reports - only public source • ? websites? - could extract from reported cases - should provide continuous data • ? FOI requests? - no ‘document’ available? • Only some jurisdictions considered • Privacy Comms - Australia; NSW; HK; NZ • Other Comms (Canada, Korea) might differ • Information Commissioners not considered - mainly access, some correction, some broader

  4. Outcomes - Australian PC • 2001-02 Annual Report - no statistics! • Complaints tripled with private sector coverage (611) • AR contains summaries of 11 complaints, of which one resulted in $5000 compensation • No statistics given of complaint outcomes at all • 2000-01 AR included some outcome stats • 133 closed complaints; uncertain % breaches found • 9 cases in AR involved $52,000 compensation • No information about other remedies • No genuine s52 determinations in 15 years • No appeal right; No substantive case on the Act ever before a Court for judicial review

  5. Outcomes - NSW PC • latest Annual Report 1999-2000 before new Act commenced (1/7/00) • No statistics or complaint resolutions yet available under new Act • Since 2000, about 20 cases to NSW ADT • 7 decided as yet - 7 more than the Cth! • AR 1999-2000 relevant to ‘non-IPP’ complaints, as they still apply • 4 complaint resolutions summarised

  6. Outcomes - Hong Kong PC • PC Annual Report 200/01 (01/02 is similar) • 789 complaints (up 39%); • 68% vs private sector;14% vs government;18% vs 3rd Ps • Over 50% allege breaches of DPP 3 (use) • 52 formally investigated (14% of 531 finalised) • 26 (50%) found to involve contravention of PD(P)O • 10 warning notices; 12 enforcement notices - but no idea what actions required, or what results • 4 referals to Police for prosecution but in 3 Police found insufficient evidence; one unresolved • Not one HK $1 under s66; any by mediation?

  7. Comparison - 4 PCs Annual Reports • ‘Will I get a remedy - and if so, what?’ is largely unanswered - evidence is not there • Some evidence of the % of successful complainants • Little evidence of what remedies result • Damages - a few examples from Aus and NZ • All of the PCs are below ‘best practice’ • A systematic and comparable standard of reporting is needed • Asia-Pacific PCs could develop standards

  8. Publication of Commissioners’ decisions - Why it needs reform • For detailed criticisms of reporting practices: • Greenleaf ‘Reforming reporting of privacy cases’ <http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/publications/2003/Reforming_reporting/> • Bygrave ‘Where have all the judges gone?’ (2000) • European Commissioners were little better - improved? • Why reporting of Commissioners is needed • Few court decisions means Commissioners’ views in complaint resolutions are the de facto law • Identifying non-compliance is more valuable (and difficult) that ‘feel good’ exhortations to comply

  9. Publication - Importance • Publication is possible • Requires anonymisation in most cases • Exceptions should not be the rule • Adverse consequences of lack of availability • Interpretation unknown to parties / legal advisers • Past remedies (‘tariff’) unknown • Privacy remains ‘Cinderalla’ of legal practice • No privacy jurisprudence is possible • Deficiences in laws do not become apparent • Commissioners can ‘bury their mistakes’ • Justice is not seen to be done • Deterrent effect is lost • No accountability for high public expenditure

  10. Publication - Australian P Comm (Federal) • AnRep has a few useless ‘media grab’ summaries • No other mediation details 1988-2002 • Comm avoids making binding Determinations (2 1993, 1 2003) despite powers to do so • Dismisses matters under s40 - publication not required • Since Dec 2002, 14 useful summaries of mediations and determinations published on web • 2x1993, 2x2002, 10x2003 • Rate now is still only 1.25 per month • Any Federal Court decisions would be on AustLII (but there are none of relevance) - no appeal right

  11. Publication - NSW P Comm • No mediation details - no AR since 2000 • ADT decisions available on AustLII

  12. Publication - HK P Comm • Complaint summaries on website only to 1998 • 2000/1 AnRep, only 8 complaint summaries ) • No systematic reporting of significant complaints • AAB complaint summaries are in AnRep, but not on website; AAB cases not available on Internet • No reporting of s66 cases in AnRep or website • There is only one

  13. Publication - NZ P Comm

  14. Conclusions

  15. Publication - 7 recommendations • Publicly stated criteria of seriousness • confirmation of adherence in each AnRep • statistics on reported / resolved ratio • Complainants can elect to be named • In default, name public sector respondents; private sector respondents only exceptionally • Report sufficient detail for a a full understanding of legal issues, and the adequacy of the remedy • Report regularly rather than in periodic batches • 'One stop' reporting including reviews of Commissioner’s decisions • Encourage 3rd-P re-publication + citation standards

  16. Publication - A central location <http://www.worldlii.org/int/special/privacy/> • Privacy & FOI Law Project = All specialist privacy and/or FOI databases located on any Legal Information Institute (LII) • Current coverage (all searchable in one search) • Canadian Privacy Commissioner Cases (WorldLII) • Privacy Commissioner of Australia Cases (AustLII) • New Zealand Privacy Commissioner Cases (AustLII) • Nova Scotia FOI & Privacy Review Office (CanLII) • Queensland Information Comm. Decisions (AustLII) • Western Australian Information Commissioner (AustLII) • Privacy Law & Policy Reporter (AustLII) • Being added • New South Wales Privacy Commissioner (AustLII) • EPIC ALERT (WorldLII)

  17. A seach for ‘disclos* near medical’

More Related