Television interview – ABC News Breakfast

E&OE

Subjects: Smart Glasses; Second Tranche of Reforms to the Privacy Act.

JAMES GLENDAY, HOST: The Federal Government is floating changes to privacy laws that could affect social media companies as well as so called smart glasses. The Attorney-General Michelle Rowland joins us now from Sydney. Michelle, welcome back to our program.

MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning.

GLENDAY. So, you're not going to ban these smart glasses? Some people refer to them as pervert glasses, others are more positive. Did you at least think about putting a ban on these devices?

ROWLAND: Well, firstly, whilst an import ban is not the subject of the draft legislation that we have released for consultation, we have also released a consultation paper that specifically looks at the issues of emerging technologies, including wearable information processing devices, like smart glasses. So, this is a good faith consultation. We want to hear views from the public on this, and also I'll point out that a number of weeks ago I requested the Privacy Commissioner prioritise work in this area which she has been doing and that will also feed into our deliberations. I would also make this point, that whilst I appreciate the high level of community concern for the nefarious types of individuals who are using these glasses in a way that is indeed causing people angst and in some cases is harassing, we need also to be aware that we need the voices of people with a disability in this as well. Vision Australia and other advocates have come forward saying that these types of technologies have been game changing for them. So, we need to make sure that we strike that right balance whilst keeping our privacy laws technology neutral and also principles based to account for other inventions that we will see in the future.

GLENDAY: I think a lot of viewers would have sympathy for what you say, but the main fear with these glasses is they can be used to film people without their knowledge. What about this idea of imposing minimum requirements, for example, that they pulse bright yellow or that there's a beeping alarm or something like that, so people know when, when they're being used? That would make it very obvious when someone was being recorded and make misuse much harder, right?

ROWLAND: Well, to that point entirely, two of the measures that we have announced as part of our privacy reforms go to exactly that. The issue of having much better informed consent but also having a fair and reasonable test for when information is collected and used. The important thing about these smart glasses is they're not just recording, they are connected to AI enabled technologies which are processing that data as well. So, it's not only recording and going up on the internet, it's recording and being processed in other ways that people aren't aware of. These are precisely the issues that the Privacy Commissioner is looking at and precisely why we have gone with these types of reforms to help bring our laws into the digital age.

GLENDAY: I mean, as things stand right, like public pools as an example, maybe beaches, there's a pretty big burden on, effectively, council workers, relatively low paid staff who have got lots of other priorities, there's a big burden on them with these devices. Is there not for them to be able to ban people or restrict people coming in or using these in the wrong way?

ROWLAND: Well, as someone who came from a local government background, I'd like to commend those councils who have or who are considering imposing terms and conditions on the entry to their facilities on the basis of whether there is some type of technology like this that is being used. I think that is highly commendable for two reasons. Firstly, it is immediate and secondly, councils are used to being able to enforce these types of measures and bylaws. So, I commend that. I also commend businesses who understand that good privacy is good business and whether they are considering, for example, having restrictions on certain parts of of their facilities, such as change rooms or other areas where vulnerable people and women might be particularly at risk, I commend that as well. But we need to also understand that this is not a lawless area. There are privacy aspects and that's governed at a Commonwealth level. There's also surveillance legislation that's governed at a state level and we also have local government bylaws as well. So, I think this is an issue where civil society needs to be involved as a whole, because again, your viewers will be very aware that this is not the last iteration of a wearable information processing technology that will be developed. Once upon a time we had GoPros and we now know that they are being developed to be much smaller and much more inconspicuous. So, we don't want to have a situation where governments and regulators are playing whack a mole on technology. We want privacy by design and that is precisely what we are aiming for through this consultation, through updating our privacy laws to bring them into the digital age.

GLENDAY: No doubt there's going to be a lot more debate on this. We've heard the Greens and others call for import bans on these things. I just want to take you to this idea about the right of erasure. Europe has laws in this area, if Australians get this right, what sort of things would they be able to do?

ROWLAND: Well, what we are proposing here is indeed not novel, and as you point out, the EU has had this in place for some years. We are proposing targeting this at large digital platforms and search engines because they are the areas where the largest amount of personal information is actually held today. To have a right of erasure means that their personal information needs to be destroyed. Because this has existed in the EU for some years, it won't be novel, it has been done and can be done, and so we are proposing this so that people have that ability to request and have that request acquitted when they no longer wish to be part of that search engine or digital platform.

GLENDAY: I just wonder how this would work. If, for example, someone has committed a crime, maybe it's five, seven years ago, would they be then able to request to Google that doesn't come up when someone Googles their name?

ROWLAND: This is not a reputational management tool. This does not apply to journalistic content. It goes to issues of the personal information that is actually held and has been provided to those search engines or large digital platforms by an individual, so, it is that personal information only.

GLENDAY: All right, thank you for clarifying that. Michelle Rowland, thank you very much for joining our program this morning.

ROWLAND: Pleasure.

[ENDS]