CR

ICO

S N

o.0

0213J

Privacy implications of using

drones under current Australian

law

Professor Des ButlerFaculty of Law

Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Australian Learning and Teaching Fellow

Senior Fellow of UK Higher Education Academy

A commitment to privacy protection?

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

– Article 17:

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful

interference with his privacy, family, home or

correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and

reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against

such interference or attacks.

Privacy Act 1988 Schedule 1• Australian Privacy Principles

(APPs)

• Collection, use, disclosure,

storage of personal information

• Federal agencies/private

organisations with annual

turnover >$3 million

Information Privacy Acts• Information Privacy Principles

(IPPs)

• State agencies

Unreasonable intrusion

on seclusion or solitude

• Trespass to land

• Private nuisance

• Invasion of privacy

• Grosse v Purvis

Public disclosure of

private facts

• Breach of

confidence

• Invasion of privacy

• Doe v ABC

Privacy from Surveillance

Privacy from Surveillance

Optical surveillance

devices

Listening

devices

Image: Lyle Radford/lyleradford.com.au

Image: Michael Trolove Image: Michael Barera

NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT ACT

Inside home

Backyard

Bushland

South

Australian

Law Reform

Institute

House of Representatives Standing Committee

on Social Policy and Legal AffairsSenate Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport References Committee

Summary

• Australia was a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires contracting states to ensure that their domestic legal systems provide adequate protection against interference with privacy.

• Nevertheless protection for privacy in Australia is piecemeal and inconsistent

• The collection, storage, use, disclosure of personal information by State agencies is governed by IPPs, and by Commonwealth agencies and private organisations with an annual turnover of >$3 million

• The common law provides patchy protection with significant limitations

• Three (3) Australian jurisdictions have no visual surveillance legislation while the legislation in the other jurisdictions is not uniform, which may have significance in practice. In any event none provide for civil remedies.

• Five (5) Law Reform Commissions and a House of Representatives Committee have recommended a statutory cause of action protecting personal privacy, which would cover invasions of privacy by drones

• Further reading: Butler, D. (2014) The Dawn of the Age of the Drones: An Australian Privacy Law Perspective. UNSW Law Journal 37(2), 434-470