privacy compliance

The Meaning of Personal Information

HomeBlogIP litigation and disputesBreach of confidenceThe Meaning of Personal Information

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In the recent case of The Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFA 4, the question was raised as to whether the words “personal information” had any bearing on what information an individual could request from an organisation under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Act).

The question came about in Telstra Corporation Limited v Privacy Commissioner [2015] AATA 991 after it was heard that Mr Grubb had requested from Telstra all personal information in relation to his telephone service.  Telstra provided to Mr Grubb various pieces of information, however refused to give him metadata in relation to his service.  On 1 May 2015 the Privacy Commissioner held that the metadata was “personal information” required to be given to Mr Grubb under the National Privacy Principle (NPP) 6.1.  Telstra took to the court to have the matter determined.

In the trial decision the court held that:

  • the Act applies to the collection of personal information by an organisation collected for inclusion in a record or a generally available publication;
  • NPP 6 required personal information to be disclosed to the person to whom the information relates and that has requested the information except where, compliance by the organisation would:
    • place an unreasonable administration burden on the organisation; or
    • cause the organisation unreasonable expense; and
  • personal information was defined in section 6(1) of the Act as information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.

Section 187LA of the Telecommunications (Inception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) later extended the meaning of personal information in relation to telecommunication services.  It states that the Act will apply to information that relates to:

  • the individual; or
  • a communication to which the individual is a party.

It does not require a service provider to keep information that is:

  • the contents or substance of the communication;
  • an address to which the communication was sent on the internet; or
  • any information that passes over the top of the service that they provide.

Counsel for Telstra submitted (and the Court agreed) that:

  • Mr Grubb’s identity was not apparent from, and could not be reasonably be ascertained from, mobile network data in relation to his mobile telephone service;
  • the mobile network data was not “personal information”;
  • providing Mr Grubb with the information requested would have an unreasonable impact upon the privacy of other individuals; and
  • Mr Grubb’s identity was not apparent and could not be easily ascertained when regard was had solely to the mobile network data, as it contained no reference to the customer’s name or telephone number. The only way the identity of an individual could be ascertained from the mobile network data would be to consider and pair it with other information that is not publically available.

The Meaning of the Privacy Principle

Dowsett J reasoned in the appeal, that the “underlying intention of National Privacy Principle 6 is to ensure that a person has access to information held by a relevant entity, which information may become known to third parties”.

It was held that it would be necessary to consider each piece of personal information requested, either individually or in conjunction with other items, to determine if the information is about the individual.  Just as a determination is required to be made as to whether the identity of a person can be reasonably ascertained.

The case did not define when metadata would be about an individual, however held that the words “about an individual” as incorporated in the National Privacy Principle 6 and the Act were substantial in determining what information a company is required to give to an individual who requests their personal data.

Links and further references

Legislation

Telecommunications (Inception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Australian Privacy Principles

Cases

Telstra Corporation Limited v Privacy Commissioner [2015] AATA 991
The Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited
[2017] FCAFA 4

Further information about privacy compliance

If you are a business and need advice on Privacy Law or your requirements to disclosure information under the National Privacy Principles, contact us for a confidential and obligation free and discussion:

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

Related insights about privacy compliance

  • Federal parliament passes cyber security laws

    Federal parliament passes cyber security laws

    On 25 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed a suite of legislation, collectively referred to by the Australian Government as the Cyber Security Legislative Package 2024.  The purported impetus for this legislation was a series of high-profile data breaches in 2022 and 2023.

    Read more …

  • Privacy Act amended to increase penalties up to $50 million

    Privacy Act amended to increase penalties up to $50 million

    The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 (Bill) was passed by both Houses of Parliament on the 28 November 2022 and now awaits Royal Assent.  The Bill was passed with virtually no amendment.

    Read more …

  • New privacy bill to be put before commonwealth parliament

    New privacy bill to be put before commonwealth parliament

    The Federal Government announced on 22 October 2022 that it intends to introduce new legislation to strengthen certain provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).  This legislative change was triggered by multiple data breaches that have occurred in the past weeks such as the Optus breach in September this year.  This article discusses the proposed amendments…

    Read more …

  • What should APP Entities include in a data destruction policy?

    What should APP Entities include in a data destruction policy?

    This article summarises the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) and the importance of having a data destruction policy (DDP) in place. It outlines the steps to take when destroying or deidentifying personal and sensitive information, and the consequences of not doing so.

    Read more …

  • Uber breaches Australian privacy laws

    Uber breaches Australian privacy laws

    This article provides an overview of interesting decisions of Australian Courts in Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property. With cases on Trade Marks, Copyright, Defamation, Negligence, Joint Ventures and Confidential Information, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in these areas.

    Read more …

  • Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (Cth)

    Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (Cth)

    Australian government proposed the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (Cth) (Bill) to enforce mandatory reporting of ransomware payments. Penalties of up to $110,000 for non-compliance.

    Read more …

  • International companies can be bound by Australian privacy laws

    International companies can be bound by Australian privacy laws

    Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if international entities have an Australian Link to Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • 7-Eleven customer survey: Do privacy policy terms equal consent?

    7-Eleven customer survey: Do privacy policy terms equal consent?

    The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.

    Read more …

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend