Further, I don’t think privacy is better protected after the Act - although my example of “spam callers” was somewhat tongue in cheek, the point is that my privacy is being breached there, and there ain’t a lot I can do about it. I don’t even know how they got my number or the information that I might be “Mrs Foo”. I certainly don’t have the funds to sue the b@stards, who are probably out of the jurisdiction anyway. I believe there is now legislation to deal with spam callers. A lawyer I know routinely answers these calls by citing the legislation and then saying “Are you aware that you are breaking the law?” - I’ll have to get the details of the section from him.

Obviously I agree that misuse of private information is a social ill to be avoided. However, the sorts of people who are likely to willingly dish out private information are generally not the sort of people who would either read or care about the legislation.

By contrast, the legislation seems to have been gleefully adopted by individuals and bodies who were already inclined towards obstructionist behaviour, and now have a rock solid legal excuse. Until you subpoena their sorry behinds, yo. Try to skip around IPP 2.1(f), you scum-sucking pigs!