<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
removed council@ from CC as it would likely bounce, but...<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 14:30 +1100, James Polley wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But back at my desktop on a bigger screen again, I notice that the following section is relevant too:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
(3) The portion of the register of members comprising names of members and dates on which the person became a member must be open for inspection, free of charge, by any member of the association within five business days of receipt of a written request by the public officer or secretary of the association.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
(4) A member of the association may obtain a copy of any part of the register on payment of a fee of not more than $1 for each page copied or printed, or without fee for an electronic copy of the information.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
So it seems that your request for email addresses would actually be valid under point 7(4)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I'm still uncomfortable with the privacy aspects of this though.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
It seems section 7 needs a complete overhaul, it appears to have very little regard for privacy.<BR>
p3 I don't think is much of an issue as there is no contact or pivate information<BR>
p4 should be removed entirely, because<BR>
p5 should be implied.<BR>
<BR>
p6a should be amended to remove the bit of newsletters, if I didn't ask for it, then its a breach under the Spam Act, yes a breach because it would be an individual member sending it, not L.A., and if it was a L.A endorsed newsletter, then, it would be sent by official means which would not require a member seeking access to a members database to do it.<BR>
<BR>
I think the Federal Privacy Commissioner would have some serious concerns about some or a lot of S7.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>