On the 25th May 2018 the EU introduced a unified regulation to deal with the protection of data. This regulation is known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
Tips for lawyers
- Be tech savvy; know what kind of block will be most effective.
- Cover all bases; the primary purpose test and the discretionary matters in subsection (5) mean you need evidence about the website, its owner and its functions.
- Investigate; no matter how hidden they are, you need to at least make reasonable efforts to determine the website operator’s identity and notify them of the proceedings.
- Co-operate with the ISPs; this is a no fault provision- therefore, the proceedings don’t have to be adversarial. The more issues that can be agreed, the easier the application will be.
- Think past the orders; have a mechanism in mind for expanding/modifying the initial orders to cover domain shifting etc.
Online copyright infringement has been a problem for content owners since the inception of the internet. The unauthorised downloading (and uploading) of copyright material is especially prevalent in Australia, where a 2015 survey estimated that Australians download movies, songs and television programs in the hundreds of millions each year.1 While content owners have been criticised by some for not making content available in Australia (or making it available at a comparatively inflated price), the unauthorised downloading of copyright material is a clear infringement of content owners’ rights.
Readers would be familiar with the contents of the SPAM Act. Essentially, the Act requires that an electronic communication must not be sent without the consent of the recipient, it must contain clear and accurate information about the person or organisation that authorised the sending of the message, and it must contain an “opt out” or “unsubscribe” provision so the recipient can choose not to receive emails in the future.
As new businesses develop and technology advances some principles still remain the same.
Recently a digital advertising agency was prosecuted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the supply or possible supply of its advertising services. The advertising was to be done by way of digital displays at various shopping centres.
From 12 November 2016 unfair terms that appear in standard form contracts involving small business are void and cannot be relied upon. To qualify as a small business contract, one of the parties must have less than 20 employees and the upfront price payable under the contract must not exceed $300,000 or, if the contract is for more than 12 months, $1,000,000.
It`s important to pay attention to the way the personal information of your company is secured. If you mishandle the confidential information of your customers, it can cause them a financial or reputational loss and lead to a decreasing of trust and considerable harm to your good name.
On October 13th, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) legislated for the retention of metadata by telecommunications carriers and internet service providers (telcos) for a mandatory period of two years. This data will then be made available to federal, state and territory police, Medicare, Councils in NSW, Worksafe Victoria, the RSPCA, the Tax Office, Australia Post, domestic spy agency ASIO, ASIC and many others when conducting criminal and financial investigations.
Small businesses are becoming increasingly vulnerable to unfair terms in standard form contracts. The Government has got closer to addressing this vulnerability by extending the unfair contract protection to include small business contracts. But what is a small business? And what types of clauses are void?
On the 6th July 2015, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released an Information Paper in relation to Outsourcing. It noted that in recent years there has been a significant change in the way that technology is being employed with shared computing services (SCS) being increasingly utilised by a range of business entities.
Another reminder has been sent by the Courts confirming that publication of photos on Twitter on or other web pages does not entitle the world at large to use or republish those photos.