PDC: Privacy tort working group
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
This document is currently under development and is not approved or endorsed by the party.
Some statements may be incorrect, unverified or otherwise objectionable to party policy or intention, and until such time as it is endorsed by the party, it does not represent the views or intentions of the party.
Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes to this document. |
Platform and preamble amendment
Tort of privacy
In addition to supporting further protections of human dignity through the curtailing of state-sponsored surveillance, Pirate Party Australia recognises that the pervasiveness and continual expansion of private and public recording equipment pose serious implications for privacy. Free expression will be significantly curtailed if all aspects of people's lives are subject to orchestrated or ad hoc surveillance. As such, we support the enactment of a statutory tort that covers both intrusions into seclusion as well as misuse of private information.
Policy amendment
Policy text
- Implement the Australian Privacy Foundation recommendations[1] to create a single tort covering both intrusion into seclusion and misuse of private information.[2]
- The tort would be prescriptive in defining high- and low-water marks for examples or classes of acts that are or aren't covered, in order to reduce potential conflict between freedom of speech and privacy.[3]
- Discretion in interpreting objectives of the tort would otherwise be left to courts.
- A public interest test will apply.[4]
- The tort would apply to actions of all legal people in private or public capacities, including corporations, but would only be actionable by natural persons.[5]
- The tort would be actionable for up to a year from the point of discovery, by either an aggrieved party, their family or estate, or by the relevant commissioner.[6]
- A variety of remedies would be available for cases where privacy has been violated.[7]
- Examples of such remedies include damages, apologies, injunctions and other equitable remedies.
- The tort would be prescriptive in defining high- and low-water marks for examples or classes of acts that are or aren't covered, in order to reduce potential conflict between freedom of speech and privacy.[3]
References
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013).
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 5.
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 4–5.
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 6.
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 9–10.
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 10–11.
- ↑ Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission No 39 to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, Issues Paper No 43 (2013) 9–10.