ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1970-3430
Current Organisations
University of Technology Sydney
,
UNSW Sydney
,
University of Sydney
,
University of New South Wales
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Date: 28-01-2011
Publisher: UNSWorks
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.26190/7SK3-0W49
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.4020031
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-07-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3880912
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2022
Publisher: Deakin University
Date: 23-02-2018
DOI: 10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART722
Abstract: A new model, or ‘third wave’, of computing is emerging, based on the widespread use of processors with data handling and communications capabilities embedded in a variety of objects and environments that were not previously computerised. Various terms have been used to describe this third wave, including ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘pervasive’ computing, ‘ambient intelligence’, the ‘Internet of Things’ and ‘eObjects’. With the socio-technical change brought about by this third wave comes the possibility of a disconnection between the law and the new things, activities, and relationships enabled by this new model of computing. This disconnection may lead to legal problems of uncertainty, under- or over-inclusiveness of conduct in existing law, obsolescence, or the complete absence of laws regulating new behaviour. Early and rigorous identification and categorisation of legal problems is crucial for emerging technologies, to assist in avoiding two problems: the first being the stifling of beneficial innovation by over-regulation, the second the cementing of socially undesirable outcomes when vested interests are left too long unchecked. Although the technologies in the third wave are erse, common attributes can be identified, and from examination of these attributes significant innovations are revealed. This paper examines these innovations to assist in identifying legal problems arising from the third wave.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2690024
Publisher: Kluwer Law International BV
Date: 09-2022
DOI: 10.54648/GPLR2022015
Abstract: This article provides a detailed examination of issues with the legislative framework meeting consumer expectations in relation to informed consent, particularly in relation to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). It also discusses two potential areas that might assist in fleshing out the current minimalist legislative definition of consent: namely case law and guidelines issued by the Australian privacy regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC Guidelines). However the case law available in this area is sparse and provides little guidance. Additionally, the non-binding OAIC Guidelines, while referred to frequently in privacy determinations, appear to have little real effect in influencing the data practices of many firms. The article concludes that the current approach to regulating ‘consent’ has not provided adequate protections for consumers in light of extensive empirical evidence regarding consumer privacy preferences and attitudes regarding data practices. Australia, Data Protection, Privacy, Informed Consent
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.4066114
Publisher: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
Date: 2021
Publisher: Kluwer Law International BV
Date: 09-2022
DOI: 10.54648/GPLR2022014
Abstract: This article outlines the empirical evidence in Australia regarding consumer privacy expectations as to commercial dealings with their data. Despite widespread disclosure of personal information from consumers to businesses, the evidence indicates that consumers believe that their privacy is important, and their personal information should be protected from misuse. However, this so-called ‘privacy paradox’, where consumer behaviour in ‘consenting’ to substantial data collection of personal information is not, in fact, a paradox. Rather, it is explained by consumers’ expectations and perceptions around data collection and handling by commercial entities: most importantly a perception by many that they have little or no choice or control over their personal information. It also shows that they expect the legal system to protect them against misuse of that data. With these expectations in mind, the article proceeds to introduce key parts of the general framework of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) under which digital data practices are currently regulated in Australia. Australia, Data Protection, Privacy, Consumers, Privacy Paradox
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2010
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.4083468
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 23-06-2022
DOI: 10.1177/1037969X221108557
Abstract: This article examines the recommendations of the recent Productivity Commission Inquiry regarding the right to repair through the lens of social issues surrounding the right to repair movement. It describes the right to repair movement in Australia and globally and examines which repair practices are considered important by the Commission, and the limitations of the Commission’s preoccupation with existing repair markets. It also discusses changing notions of ownership and their effects on repair practices.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2015
Publisher: IATED
Date: 03-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3464277
No related grants have been discovered for Kayleen Manwaring.