ShiftedPixels

* There has been an interference with their home or family life;

* They have been subject to unauthorised surveillance;

* Their correspondence or private communication has been interfered with; or

* Sensitive facts about their private life have been disclosed.

But for an action to succeed, the complainant must also prove they had a "reasonable expectation to privacy" and the conduct must have been "highly offensive" to a reasonable person. In its report, the ALRC said people should be protected from unwanted intrusion.

The "Right to Know Coalition" which by the way represents Australia's top media groups, has opposed the recommendations, I think, because they have the potential to ruin top rating prime time hits such as "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair".

Suddenly these shows may lose their ability to push onto people's property and enter their houses berrating them with questions, the answers of which will be taken out of context in editing anyway! Shame, Shame Shame.

Whilst Matt the citizen fundementally supports these recommendations, it does cause me to think of how these changes could effect the digital marketing space in the future.

Will there come a time where users could sue agencies for tracking click-thrus on email marketing campaigns? Could Facebook advertising potentially qualify as an invasion of privacy? Surely this could spell trouble for Social Media Marketing.

But for now I am writing this blog post with a smug smile on my face. I'm always pleased when someone kicks commercial TV in the guts. Not that I ever watch any, it's been youtube and torrents for a long time now.

Wait torrents! How would these new laws effect the free trade agreement with the states and the copyright laws. Would the MPAA still be able to track torrent downloads? Surely that is a big enough privacy invasion to warrant a class action. :-)

Labels: Copyright, democracy, Digital Marketing, digital media, Privacy

Labels: consumer, conversations, Copyright, EFF, Privacy