Cyberlaw

Data law released in Australia

The Office of the National Data Commissioner has released an exposure draft of the Data Availability and Transparency Bill for public comment. - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-16/government-draft-law-share-personal-data-between-agencies/12666792)

More information and the draft bill is available here: https://www.datacommissioner.gov.au/exposure-draft/dat

The objects of this law are to:

(a) promote better availability of public sector data; and

(b) enable consistent safeguards for sharing public sector data; and

(d) build confidence in the use of public sector data; and

(e) establish institutional arrangements for sharing public sector data.

The impact of AI on IP

The UK Intellectual Property Office has announced a call for views on artificial intelligence and intellectual property. In particular, the UK IPO wants to hear about the implications that AI might have for IP policy, and, likewise, what impact IP might have on AI.

See the full consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views

The consultation closes on 11 November 2020.

Targeting Social Media Users

On Monday September 7, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued draft Guidelines 8/2020 on the targeting of social media users.

The Draft Guidelines have far-reaching implications for social media platforms, advertisers, and adtech companies, as they will result in a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders, and establish rules for consent.

Article here.

Australian Cyber Security Seminar

Watch Seminar Here.

Defamation By Liking

STOLTENBERG V BOLTON; LODER V BOLTON [2020] NSWCA 45 (20 MARCH 2020) (MACFARLAN JA AT [1], GLEESON JA AT [2], BRERETON JA AT [250])

The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in respect of a first instance decision of the Supreme Court that found a series of posts and comments about the former Mayor of the Narrabri Shire Council made on a Facebook page were defamatory.

The trial judge found that a comment endorsing a defamatory post was sufficient to attract liability as a secondary publisher of the defamatory post.

On Appeal, the court agreed that the principles of secondary publication are well established, and refused leave to appeal.

Fake Reviews!

Online odd jobs platform Service Seeking has been fined $600,000 for falsely representing that reviews on its platform were written by customers when in fact they were written by the businesses themselves.

See ACCC release: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/service-seeking-to-pay-penalty-for-misleading-online-‘customer’-reviews

Queensland Privacy Review and Law Reform Report

Today, the Queensland Law Reform Commission published a final report, Report No 77, Review of Queensland’s laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies.

https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/653322/QLRC-Report-77-online.pdf

The Report includes a draft bill: DRAFT SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BILL 2020

Facebook in Australia?

Facebook claims it can’t be sued by Aussie privacy watchdog

In a court hearing on Friday, 26 June 202, US-based Facebook has argued that it does not carry on business in Australia despite users in Australia accessing its website, calling for the dismissal of action brought by the Australian Information Commissioner over alleged privacy breaches and Cambridge Analytics.

French High Court Overrules Takedown Law

The French Constitutional Council struck down critical provisions of a law passed by France’s parliament last month to combat online hate speech.

The law had put the onus for analysing content solely on tech platforms such as Facebook without the involvement of a judge, within a very short time frame, and with the threat of hefty penalties.

Decision (in French of course)

NY Times article

Software Applications Hard to Patent in Australia

The decision today of the Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt further clarifies the position in relation to whether a computer implemented method can be patentable in Australia.

The decision follows a series of decisions considering similar issues, which each focus on whether particular software can be the subject of a patent. In summary, the Full Court finds that the software in question in this case, which related to a method of presenting targeted advertising to a consumer, was not a patentable invention, as it was merely a method for using the well known and understood functions of a computer.

The decision reinforces the fact that a method which gets a computer to do something it has not done before is not patentable – to be patentable the method would have to enable the computer to do something which it was previously unable to do.

The law of patentable subject matter in Australia is illogical and discriminates against inventors who implement their inventions in software.

See https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0086