ozpharlap Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 POSTING embarrassing photographs or damaging information about mates, co-workers or ex-partners online could see you hauled before the courts under proposed new federal laws. Privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim told The Sunday Telegraph he had recommended stronger laws for publishing images on social networking sites that are so damaging it could get someone fired, blacklisted by future employers, or put them in physical danger. If someone posted information about you without your permission and it cost you a job or had other serious consequences you may be able to sue them for damages. "What we are talking about here is when someone posts something maliciously, where it is designed to hurt or harm someone," Mr Pilgrim said. "As information can be posted online by a much broader range of people rather than just organisations, we need to make sure the community has access to a broader range of remedies to be able to protect personal information. "There should be an ability to have a statutory right to their privacy." Only organisations or government agencies can be reprimanded for mishandling personal information. Individuals go unpunished, but the Government said it was considering: "a significant change to the law". Minister for Privacy Brendan O'Connor said the Government was considering whether to introduce the statutory cause of action. "This proposes a significant change to the law and will require extensive and detailed consideration and consultation," he said. The change could give former Canberra Raiders player Joel Monaghan the right to sue the person who leaked photographs of him simulating a sex act with a dog, which saw him sacked from the team. It would also allow Lara Bingle to take action against the leaking of a naked photo of her getting out of the shower. Employers and recruiters are regularly scouring social networking websites for damaging information they can use to vet potential employees or even to spy on current ones. "Sites such as Facebook are being used increasingly by companies to screen candidates," said Michael Page head of marketing for Asia Pacific, Marcus Sandmann, adding that the company's "more savvy consultants" always examined social networking profiles to unearth any "peculiar behaviour". University of NSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile said a more stringent law was essential. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Governments are held accountable now? Went on line and got one person's Social Security number and then almost fell over backwards when I got to see their 1040 tax return. Both serious violations but nobody is 'there' to enforce the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 There are sites that promise to do a background check on anyone you want for a fee. How do you know they have the right person? It could be someone with the same name and similar details. Could a damaged individual sue? p.s. Not to mention the Galt-Stickman feud ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passingthru69 Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 There are sites that promise to do a background check on anyone you want for a fee. How do you know they have the right person? It could be someone with the same name and similar details. I have used a site like the ones you question. Yes it does pop up different paople with the same name. But if you know the person you are checking out, like their last know address or prior one you can get true facts. Not knowing an address or date of sirth can stumble you up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 How do you know the info from those sites is accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiery Jack Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 I misread the thread title, there: thought it said 'Online [color:red]WANKS[/color] may be illegal!'. F*cking hell, nearly scared the shite out of me, mate. Back to the porn then. As you were, gents. jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 There have been numerous instances in the US where credit agencies have mistakenly combined the records of two individuals with the same or similar name and similar birth dates. A few years ago it made the news when a man had to change his name legally to get out of the mess, since his records had been combined with another person with a long criminal record. The guy would no sooner get hired, then his new employer would run a check - and fire him on the spot with all sorts of accusations. The credit agency's farked up "information" had been spread all over the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 There are sites that promise to do a background check on anyone you want for a fee. How do you know they have the right person? It could be someone with the same name and similar details. Could a damaged individual sue? p.s. Not to mention the Galt-Stickman feud ... I thought about checking a couple of those sites once by opening an investigation. But I never did it. However, you would be shocked to know that possession of a whole lot of personal information is not illegal in most states in the US. You cant charge someone for having your SS# for example in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 There have been numerous instances in the US where credit agencies have mistakenly combined the records of two individuals with the same or similar name and similar birth dates. A few years ago it made the news when a man had to change his name legally to get out of the mess, since his records had been combined with another person with a long criminal record. The guy would no sooner get hired, then his new employer would run a check - and fire him on the spot with all sorts of accusations. The credit agency's farked up "information" had been spread all over the States. Sometimes credit companies do this on purpose. The one getting stuck with the bill is almost always the one who can pay the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 A real good cash cow for the credit companies is sticking somebody for a bill (bogus) then rush for judgment. Once the judgment is ascertained the credit company does nothing. When the person goes to buy a house, their credit is checked for liens, judgments, etc. and the judgment is found. The debt was bogus but if the person really wants the house bad enough, they will pay off the bogus judgment just so they can get the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.