Government response to the Privacy Act Review Report

Yes

Yes

The more methods of information, the better. We all learn in different ways, so the more options, the more effective education should be.

Also, most small businesses have staff with varying levels of skills & experience. So the "one size fits all" will not work.

Yes

Enforecement for bad offenders.

Including possibility of "go to jail" for serious offences Redacted text.

Same support as for any other small business.

Customers and employees should have the right to refuse to provide facial recognition technology and other biometric information, UNLESS there is a Redacted text good reason.

For example, Bunnings scanning all faces without warning is NOT acceptable.

However, for military site and other key sites, using facial recognition technology and other biometric information as part of the security makes sense.

Difficult, as so much information is avalable on the web/cloud.

Restricting research could be difficult. Might be better to focus on how such reaerach is used - such as trqade off of privacy versus the purpose.

So if a journalist is purely seeking to :get rihc", not n. Howeverm if a journalist is seeking to uncover a truth, leniency.

What's the difference between an "agency" and an "organisation"? Frankly, seems the be lawyers wasting time.

The same rules should apply to everyone, regardless of whether it is an individual, a company, a trust, a partnership, a government deparment, etc.

Act honesty and stop being selfish.

Simple: introduce "go to jail" for serious offences and repeat offenders.

The threat of "go to jail" is generally enough to make most people behave.

Adding complex layers only works in favour of the rich and "big business", whi can hire expensive lawyers to create Redacted text arguements.

Individuals should have thje right to be told in advance what private information is being collected and why. Plus to be told later what is actually being held.

Frankly, too often businesses ask for private data that is not necessary.

"Public interests" such as national security are important.

Common sense should prevail. However, common sense is usually not very "common".

Direct marketing on indiviuals is currently a joke.

I have been on the "Do Not Call" register almost since it was introduced, but I still received unwanted telephone calls, SMSs and emails.

Direct marketing on indiviual should ONLY be where consent has been explicitly provided.

So I strongly agree with Proposal 20.2

Same as above. So I strongly agree with these Proposals to protect individuals.

The sale of private data for individuals should be unlawful with "go to jail" as an offence for blatant breaches.

Common sense should prevail, however rearely does.

Take the Redacted text at Optus. All contracts have ALL private data at the top of the contract. So when a customer telephones Optus, the Optus person then can see everything. Optus' argument is to save time for when customer ID checkes are required. However, most calls are probably queries only and not result in a change to a contract.

I note that Optus set aside A$140m to cover the cost to replace passports, etc. Having customers private data in a stand alone database would have been a lot cheaper!!!

Good education tools are needed for small businesses.

Private data for Australian cistizens should be securely stored in Australia, not other countries.

There should be tighter rules for overseas recipients of personal information.

"Name and shame" for serious breaches and repeat offenders.

Low cost options include publishing in "The Gazette".

"Go to jail" needs to be introduced for serious privacy breaches.

Currently Australian privacy (and human rights) laws are a "joke" as they have little "bite" for offenders.

I'm not suggesting "go to jail" for minor one-off offences. However, the fear of spending time in jail, or even spending 8 hours being interogatted by law enforcement, should be enough to get Boards and Senior Executives to take privacy more seriously.