On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:11, you wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:01:47 +1300 > > Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:46, you wrote: > > > Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > > > *) handling private information by law requires appropriate care > > > > regardless of the internet > > > > [ .. precise sections of the law elided for brevity .. ] > > > > > I'll forward it to the CPIT privacy officer, and let y'all know. > > > > Don't forget the phrase:- > > > > "As far as I am aware this section of the Privacy Act 1993 has yet to be > > validated by a court action. Are you volunteering to be the test case?". > > > > Usually has a motivating effect. > > It would be far more effective to mention the Privacy Commissioner, who > will not charge you, whereas taking it to court will cost u an arm ands > a leg because of that nasty avaricious profession, lawyers.
Are you telling me that not one of your collegues know the true meaning of the Latin words 'pro bono Publicus'? > And what would you ask the court to do? 1) Issue an injunction to tell the Polytech to protect the privacy my personal information, instead of broadcasting it willy-nilly to all who might me listening. 2) Issue an order against the Politech for it to pay my costs. That would create a case-law precedent. -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine. Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.
