On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:57:58 +1300 Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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'? We all do our share of it to one extent or another. > > > 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. yes but more effective is the use of the privacy commissioner, believe me those institutions do NOT like the PC breathing down their neck. It is an administrative nightmare. > > -- > 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. > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
