South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson shouts 'you lie' at Obama

[Heracles 417]

Australia is actually looking into tightening their privacy laws further, to protect individuals.

--------------

Take a good look - this picture might soon be banned

JOEL GIBSON LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

August 15, 2009

SHOWING a sex tape to a third party or fishing someone's financial or medical records out of a bin could get you sued under privacy laws proposed yesterday. They would be among the toughest in the world.

The NSW Law Reform Commission released draft laws to give victims of stalkers, hidden cameras, harassment and some publications the right to sue for damages.

But the proposals also raised the prospect of lawsuits over a newspaper picture of a person in a public place or an artist's painting of someone in a street scene.

An invasion of privacy would exist where a person has ''a reasonable expectation of privacy'' that is not outweighed by a relevant public interest. Mere annoyance or anxiety would be enough to justify their claim.

Medical records would be off-limits, including details of a celebrity's treatment for drug addiction, such as supermodel Naomi Campbell's case against a British newspaper. Only if the information had to be published in the public interest, for example to warn of someone's infectious condition, would it be allowed.

Information about someone's sex life, even if cheating on a partner or paying a prostitute, also would be private, except where the sexual practices undermine a public figure's ability to do his or her job, for example, or belie previous statements.

Information already on the public record, such as convictions, health issues or financial troubles revealed in court documents, could be unpublishable.

The laws proposed against ''offensive'' invasions of privacy would be in line with those in Britain but tougher than those in the US and New Zealand, where an invasion must be ''highly offensive'' to be illegal.

The NSW report is also tougher than the Australian Law Reform Commission's stance on privacy and possible laws imagined by the High Court.

If adopted nationally, they would ''level the playing field'' that has become tilted in favour of freedom of expression in Australia, the report said.

The chairman of the commission, the James Wood, QC, acknowledged its proposals were stronger than most others developed around the world, with the possible exception of Europe.

But we are living in a new era where there are ''so many ways you can intrude on a person's privacy,'' Mr Wood said.

He called it ''a commonsense approach'', aimed at intrusive neighbours, pushy private eyes and perverts. ''I wouldn't be too frightened of it if I were the media. It would not destroy investigative journalism because of the tests about public interest and the need for the public to be informed.''

Dr David Rolph, a lecturer in media law at the University of Sydney, said defamation law was weighted too heavily against freedom of speech. Courts would have broad powers to apply notions of privacy and public interest under the proposed regime and may not do so in a balanced fashion.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Cheney was a black hearted d0uchebag. I agree about bush, but will ad that he was not the strongest of character. He allowed Cheney to lead him down a very shady path with the war and domestic spying etc.

The domestic spying claim is an erroneous as the republicans claim Obama's health care plan is secretly going to eventually becoming a NHS system. It's scare tactics and propaganda.

You guys are paranoid about the government but allow private industries and lawyers to get away with anything. Whereas, overseas, the government is our government, it's their job to know about us. Whereas, we have a huge problem with private industries, sectors or even individuals finding out anything about us without our permission. I mean realistically you give me your name and I could find out everything about you: age, SSN, cell, address etc. Especially with the use of skip tracing. Overseas, not possible and highly illegal. In Canada for example, once you seize doing business with a company, they must delete all of your records and they are not permitted to transfer or sell any of it. Same deal in Australia.

Things that are covered by the freedom of Information act here are illegal in the UK, Canada and Aus. So realistically who has the privacy? Which privacy systems works at actually keeping your information private? The level of information flow in the private industry, in America, is alarming for me. Whereas, you guys are worried about the government. To the contrary, the government there can monitor emails, calls etc, and most people don't care or cry about it.

I know full well what the program entailed. I none the less don't like it or the direction it takes us in with regards to civil liberties.

[Heracles 417]

I know full well what the program entailed. I none the less don't like it or the direction it takes us in with regards to civil liberties.

This is one of those things where, why is it that the rest of the world is not Paranoid about this but you guys are? Why is it that information that is readily available here is restricted there?

There comes a point when Americans need to start looking at others around the world and taking note of those that are doing things better. I would rather my privacy against private individuals be protected than of the government. Obviously to Americans, particularly those with left wing views, they prefer the opposite. Well, agree or disagree, that just puts you at odds with the rest of the developed world. Just saying. The governments needs to do their job after all.

You guys don't agree with interrogation. You don't agree with monitoring communication channels. You don't agree with Gitmos. So then you tell me what the government is supposed to do to actually catch terrorists? Harsh language does not work. This paranoia against the government is why gangs and organized crime groups alone, flourish and move so freely in the US.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know full well what the program entailed. I none the less don't like it or the direction it takes us in with regards to civil liberties.

This is one of those things where, why is it that the rest of the world is not Paranoid about this but you guys are? Why is it that information that is readily available here is restricted there?

There comes a point when Americans need to start looking at others around the world and taking note of those that are doing things better. I would rather my privacy against private individuals be protected than of the government. Obviously to Americans, particularly those with left wing views, they prefer the opposite. Well, agree or disagree, that just puts you at odds with the rest of the developed world. Just saying. The governments needs to do their job after all.

You guys don't agree with interrogation. You don't agree with monitoring communication channels. You don't agree with Gitmos. So they you tell me what the government is supposed to do to actually catch terrorists. This paranoia against the government is why gangs and organized crime groups flourish and move so freely in the US.

That's not true - there have been plenty of public criticisms in the UK about government programs infringing on individual privacy. Believe it or not the wall to wall CCTV cameras are not universally popular, nor are the government's continued attempts to impose national ID cards on the public.

[Heracles 417]

That's not true - there have been plenty of public criticisms in the UK about government programs infringing on individual privacy. Believe it or not the wall to wall CCTV cameras are not universally popular, nor are the government's continued attempts to impose national ID cards on the public.

Excluding the UK. You guys will bi-tch about anything. Regardless, the British government still has a lot of power to monitor communications. Which as you pointed out, begins with the large amount of CCTV camera. The police obviously cannot be everywhere. Whereas the US is plagued with crime hot spots but there is not a single camera in sight. Money says ACLU has something to do with this. As does the Orwellian paranoia. You cannot tell me people in the UK, Canada or Australia are anywhere even close to as paranoid as people here are about the government. Never in my life have I heard anyone from those countries say I don't trust the government. And be dead serious about it.

Furthermore, why don't you ask legal immigrants alone how hard it is to open accounts etc there. Yes, even for people from Australia which is still associated, as in tied to the hip, with Britain. It took my friends weeks and for good reason. The proper background checks were conducted at every stage.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not true - there have been plenty of public criticisms in the UK about government programs infringing on individual privacy. Believe it or not the wall to wall CCTV cameras are not universally popular, nor are the government's continued attempts to impose national ID cards on the public.

Excluding the UK. You guys will bi-tch about anything. Regardless, the British government still has a lot of power to monitor communications. Which as you pointed out, begins with the large amount of CCTV camera. The police obviously cannot be everywhere. Whereas the US is plagued with crime hot spots but there is not a single camera in sight. Money says ACLU has something to do with this. As does the Orwellian paranoia.

You will also find similar criticism in a lot of other countries. I believe there was a big hoo-ha in one of the Scandinavian countries a few years back because the government had decided to sell the collected medical history of its citizens to a private research company.

You guys don't agree with interrogation. You don't agree with monitoring communication channels. You don't agree with Gitmos. So then you tell me what the government is supposed to do to actually catch terrorists? Harsh language does not work. This paranoia against the government is why gangs and organized crime groups alone, flourish and move so freely in the US.

This isn't true either.

The question is, and has always been, to what extent the government should have these sorts of powers and whether or not they infringe on the common law.

The problem with Gitmo (in fact all of the problems of Gitmo) arise from the fact that the detention facility was set up without any government oversight or direction whatsoever; the US military was essentially tasked with putting together the detention facility and coming up with the regime for the prisoners.

This was done for obvious, if entirely cynical reasons - namely providing Cheney and Rumsfeld with plausible deniability should anything go wrong.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Private Pike

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe Joe Wilson thought it was a town hall meeting

[Teacher Mark 53]

** Australia.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Mr. Saigon

[Heracles 417]

You will also find similar criticism in a lot of other countries. I believe there was a big hoo-ha in one of the Scandinavian countries a few years back because the government had decided to sell the collected medical history of its citizens to a private research company..

You will find criticism everywhere. That is a products of a democracy. However, you will never see the level of paranoia as you do here and certainly not towards the government.

When it comes to private companies (industry), most other English countries seem to be extremely strict with; particularly regarding any information flow. Whereas, in the US we have a situation where the government is not allowed to store your name but private industries and data collection centers are allowed to store and distribute anything and everything. I mean seriously, you give me your name and I bet you using legal channels i will have everything about you within an hour. Brits, Aussies and Canucks would kick and scream about that back home. I mean the FBI has to purchase information from these same private companies, as they are not allowed to do so on their own. That is a bloody joke dude and would not be acceptable in any other English country.

Trust me, I worked on privacy compliance in AUS, for the last company I worked at. When it comes to an individual's data, everything short of pissing is illegal. Even customer service reps have to ask a range of question to ensure it's you on the phone. Without your explicit permission, even your spouse or family cannot inquire about your account.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Booyah!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Fortunately I can't see whatever it is you just posted because i'm at work. Must be a video, but its just blank here.

Quite convenient

You're finally right about something. Its convenient I can't see what you post.

Nice attempt at being witty, but you should leave it to the more capable. I suppose you can go watch the video when you get home from McDonalds.

Yes at McDonalds the workers are given offices with computers. In that case, maybe I should apply there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You will also find similar criticism in a lot of other countries. I believe there was a big hoo-ha in one of the Scandinavian countries a few years back because the government had decided to sell the collected medical history of its citizens to a private research company..

You will find criticism everywhere. That is a products of a democracy. However, you will never see the level of paranoia as you do here and certainly not towards the government.

When it comes to private companies (industry), most other English countries seem to be extremely strict with; particularly regarding any information flow. Whereas, in the US we have a situation where the government is not allowed to store your name but private industries and data collection centers are allowed to store and distribute anything and everything. I mean seriously, you give me your name and I bet you using legal channels i will have everything about you within an hour. Brits, Aussies and Canucks would kick and scream about that back home.

It really doesn't matter who stores the information - the question surely is how much information is being stored, in how many places, and how secure those databases are.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Fortunately I can't see whatever it is you just posted because i'm at work. Must be a video, but its just blank here.

Quite convenient

You're finally right about something. Its convenient I can't see what you post.

Nice attempt at being witty, but you should leave it to the more capable. I suppose you can go watch the video when you get home from McDonalds.

Yes at McDonalds the workers are given offices with computers. In that case, maybe I should apply there.

No, but they do have kiosks that are internet capable.

[Danno 1,228]

However Bush was proven to be a liar.

And so is Obama. Whats your point?

WMD.

Let's play "Who else was lying"!

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Now you tell me who else didn't lie and I will see if I can "beat you" by posting their own words.

[Heracles 417]

You will also find similar criticism in a lot of other countries. I believe there was a big hoo-ha in one of the Scandinavian countries a few years back because the government had decided to sell the collected medical history of its citizens to a private research company..

You will find criticism everywhere. That is a products of a democracy. However, you will never see the level of paranoia as you do here and certainly not towards the government.

When it comes to private companies (industry), most other English countries seem to be extremely strict with; particularly regarding any information flow. Whereas, in the US we have a situation where the government is not allowed to store your name but private industries and data collection centers are allowed to store and distribute anything and everything. I mean seriously, you give me your name and I bet you using legal channels i will have everything about you within an hour. Brits, Aussies and Canucks would kick and scream about that back home.

It really doesn't matter who stores the information - the question surely is how much information is being stored, in how many places, and how secure those databases are.

It does matter. I vote in a government, I have a rep to write to. When it comes to the private industry, I know nothing about who has my info or what is stored on me. I'll say it again, private industries or companies are not permitted to store, sell or even transfer your information without your permission. Whereas, in the US this is legal. There are a range of data mining companies that store information on you. Companies that I can go to and buy information on you. Whereas, these same types of companies are not permitted to operate in the UK, Canada or Australia.

Facebook recently faced a problem with Canada as they were breaching their privacy laws. Under Canadian law, once you seize doing business with a company, they must deleted your information. The cannot sell or transfer it period. This is not the case in the US.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Booyah!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Fortunately I can't see whatever it is you just posted because i'm at work. Must be a video, but its just blank here.

Quite convenient

You're finally right about something. Its convenient I can't see what you post.

Nice attempt at being witty, but you should leave it to the more capable. I suppose you can go watch the video when you get home from McDonalds.

Yes at McDonalds the workers are given offices with computers. In that case, maybe I should apply there.

No, but they do have kiosks that are internet capable.

I see, it must be where you spend your free time. BTW whenever I ate at McD's I never saw these kiosks. I must be going to the wrong ones.