Drugs in sport - government investigation

[Porthoz]

Phone taps are admissible if the warrant and affidavit are signed off by a magistrate or judge.

As for recording conversations on say your iPhone then one person must be aware you are recording. In other words you can't leave your iPhone on the table recording and leave the room.

You're not obliged to inform a person that you are recording the conversation in Qld, as long as you are a party to it. (Qld Privacy Act 1971 Sect 43)
However you cannot divulge the recording without all the parties prior authorisation OR during legal procedings. (Qld Privacy Act 1971 Sect 45)

This means that if we have a private conversation, I can record it without your knowledge and later use it against you in court!

 

[Kimlo]

Doesn't that mean you can't?
However you cannot divulge the recording without all the parties prior authorisation OR
You cannot divulge the recording during legal proceedings.

 

[Porthoz]

[h=3]INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT 1971 - SECT 45[/h] 45 Prohibition on communication or publication of private conversations by parties thereto
(1) A person who, having been a party to a private conversation and having used a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to that conversation, subsequently communicates or publishes to any other person any record of the conversation made, directly or indirectly, by the use of the listening device or any statement prepared from such a record is guilty of an offence against this Act and is liable on conviction on indictment to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the communication or publication--

(a) is made to another party to the private conversation or with the consent, express or implied, of all other parties to the private conversation, being parties referred to in section 42(2)(a); or​

(b) is made in the course of legal proceedings; or
​

(c) is not more than is reasonably necessary--
​

(i) in the public interest; or​

(ii) in the performance of a duty of the person making the communication or publication; or​

(iii) for the protection of the lawful interests of that person; or​

(d) is made to a person who has, or is believed, on reasonable grounds, by the person making the communication or publication to have, such an interest in the private conversation as to make the communication or publication reasonable under the circumstances in which it is made; or​

(e) is made by a person who used the listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to the private conversation under section 43(2)(c) or (d).​

(3) In subsection (2)--
legal proceedings includes--

(a) proceedings (whether civil or criminal) in or before any court; and​

(b) proceedings before justices; and​

(c) proceedings before any court, tribunal or person (including any inquiry, examination or arbitration) in which evidence is or may be given; and​

(d) any part of legal proceedings.
​

See bold sections... :winky:

 

[Kimlo]

Ok now that makes sense with the extra reading, haha.

 

[Nashy]

I think the legal proceedings would then fall under the national privacy act wouldn't it? In which case the other party needs to be informed?

 

[Porthoz]

I think the legal proceedings would then fall under the national privacy act wouldn't it? In which case the other party needs to be informed?

Not sure I understand what you mean...
The Australian Privacy act is only valid for the Australian Federal Govt and its agencies or private contractors working for them.

 

[Nashy]

What? The federal laws cover everything from the way companies store your information and divulge that information, including your bank, phone provider, Internet etc.

 

[Kaz]

The 'Privacy Act' wouldn't come into it, as it is illegal activity they are investigating.

 

[Porthoz]

What? The federal laws cover everything from the way companies store your information and divulge that information, including your bank, phone provider, Internet etc.

Nope, those things are covered under State laws.

 

[Nashy]

No they're not. They are covered by federal law because they operate for all the states.

Hence, my partner deals with Federal Privacy, not QLD privacy. They operate a head office in NSW, VIC and QLD. THey don't have three separate laws, just the one Federal law.

 

[Porthoz]

No they're not. They are covered by federal law because they operate for all the states.

Hence, my partner deals with Federal Privacy, not QLD privacy. They operate a head office in NSW, VIC and QLD. THey don't have three separate laws, just the one Federal law.

Sorry mate, that's incorrect:

[h=1]2. Privacy Regulation in Australia[/h] [h=2]State and territory regulation of privacy[/h] Print
2.10 Each Australian state and territory regulates the management of personal information. In some states and territories, personal information is regulated by legislative schemes, in others by administrative regimes.
2.11 Section 3 of the Privacy Act states:

It is the intention of the Parliament that this Act is not to affect the operation of a law of a State or of a Territory that makes provision with respect to the collection, holding, use, correction, disclosure or transfer of personal information (including such a law relating to credit reporting or the use of information held in connection with credit reporting) and is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.
​

2.12 The provision makes clear that the Australian Parliament did not intend to ‘cover the field’ and to override state and territory laws relating to the protection of personal information if such laws are capable of operating alongside the Privacy Act. Section 3 of the Privacy Act is discussed in Chapter 3.
2.13 New South Wales (NSW), Victoria and the ACT all have legislation that regulates the handling of personal health information in the private sector. This means that health service providers and others in the private sector in those jurisdictions are required to comply with both federal and state or territory legislation in relation to personal health information. Part H of this Report discusses the issues and problems inherent in this situation. Methods for dealing with these issues are outlined in Chapter 3.

Source: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...tralia/state-and-territory-regulation-privacy

 

[Kaz]

[MENTION=2221]Porthoz[/MENTION], don't ruin a good story with the truth.

 

[Kaz]

THE independent report into Cronulla's 2011 supplement program has warned peptides given to players may have accelerated former prop Jon Mannah's fatal cancer.

An explosive report has raised concerns about the potential of an "identified causal link" between peptides CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and Mannah's relapse into Hodgkin's lymphoma in late 2011.

The Daily Telegraph went to the Mannah family's home in western Sydney yesterday to ascertain if they were aware of the contents of the report.

The family, including Mannah's parents and brother Tim, who plays for the Parramatta Eels, was unaware and did not wish to comment.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...on-mannahs-death/story-e6frexrr-1226629608852

The DT can't get any lower.

The front page of the DT

 

[Kimlo]

"A brief review of available published medical literature suggests an identified causal link between the use of substances such as CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and the acceleration of the condition of disease Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Wow, if true and there really is a link for the peptides and accelerating the death of J Mannah (may he RIP) then there's going to be serious trouble heading to Cronulla.

 

[Kaz]

Some peptides are used to treat certain cancers.

 

[Kimlo]

I don't know anything about the topic in all honesty, but if those "casual links" can be proven to have had a real effect in J Mannah's death then Cronulla are going to be in deep shit.

 

[Coxy]

I don't know anything about the topic in all honesty, but if those "casual links" can be proven to have had a real effect in J Mannah's death then Cronulla are going to be in deep ****.

*Causal.

And if you read the wording:

"A brief review of available published medical literature suggests an identified causal link between the use of substances such as CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and the acceleration of the condition of disease Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Without knowing anything further about Mannah's exact medical history and without seeking expert opinion from an appropriately qualified oncologist it is difficult to take this issue further.
"The issue of Mannah has the potential to be as serious as matters could get."

Note that they're saying there's absolutely no way they could make a judgment on the legitimacy of the concerns without thorough review of the case.

For the Daily Telegraph to go front page with this is absolutely disgusting. I hope James Hooper, Josh Massoud and especially Rebecca Wilson get arse cancer and that no NRL player ever talks to anyone at the Daily Telegraph ever again.

 

[Nashy]

That should be against the law.