What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice

In this article, we analyse agricultural data (ag-data) codes of practice. After the introduction, Part II examines the emergence of ag-data codes of practice and provides two case studies—the American Farm Bureau’s Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data and New Zealand’s Farm Data Code of Practice—that illustrate that the ultimate aims of ag-data codes of practice are inextricably linked to consent, disclosure, transparency and, ultimately, the building of trust. Part III highlights the commonalities and challenges of ag-data codes of practice. In Part IV several concluding observations are made. Most notably, while ag-data codes of practice may help change practices and convert complex details about ag-data contracts into something tangible, understandable and useable, it is important for agricultural industries to not hastily or uncritically accept or adopt ag-data codes of practice. There needs to be clear objectives, and a clear direction in which stakeholders want to take ag-data practices. In other words, stakeholders need to be sure about what they are trying, and able, to achieve with ag-data codes of practice. Ag-data codes of practice need credible administration, accreditation and monitoring. There also needs to be a way of reviewing and evaluating the codes in a more meaningful way than simple metrics such as the number of members: for example, we need to know something about whether the codes raise awareness and education around data practices, and, perhaps most importantly, whether they encourage changes in attitudes and behaviours around the access to and use of ag-data

Review of codes of conduct, voluntary guidelines and principles relevant for farm data sharing

Codes of conduct, voluntary guidelines, sets of principles on how to transparently govern farm data are a recent thing. While laws and regulations that govern personal data are becoming more and more common, legislation still does not cover data flows in many industries where different actors in the value chain need to share data and at the same time protect all involved from the risks of data sharing. Data in these value chains is currently governed through private data contracts or licensing agreements, which are normally very complex and on which data producers have very little negotiating power. Codes of conduct have started to emerge to fill the legislative void and to set common standards for data sharing contracts: codes provide principles that the signatories/subscribers/members agree to apply in their contracts

The limits of law in the protection of public health and the role of public health ethics

Peer reviewe

The dawn of the age of the drones: an Australian privacy law perspective

Examines Australia\u27s privacy laws in relation to unmanned aerial vehicles, to identify deficiencies that may need to be addressed. Introduction Suppose a homeowner habitually enjoys sunbathing in his or her backyard, protected by a high fence from prying eyes, including those of an adolescent neighbour. In times past such homeowners could be assured that they might go about their activities without a threat to their privacy. However, recent years have seen technological advances in the development of unmanned aerial vehicles (‘UAVs’), also known colloquially as drones, that have allowed them to become reduced in size, complexity and price. UAVs today include models retailing to the public for less than $350 and with an ease of operation that enables them to serve as mobile platforms for miniature cameras. These machines now mean that for individuals like the posited homeowner’s adolescent neighbour, barriers such as high fences no longer constitute insuperable obstacles to their voyeuristic endeavours. Moreover, ease of access to the internet and video sharing websites provides a ready means of sharing any recordings made with such cameras with a wide audience. Persons in the homeowner’s position might understandably seek some form of redress for such egregious invasions of their privacy. Other than some form of self-help, what alternative measures may be available? Under Australian law this problem yields no easy answer. In this country, a fractured landscape of common law, Commonwealth and state/territory legislation provides piecemeal protection against invasions of privacy by cameras mounted on UAVs. It is timely, at what may be regarded as the early days of the drone age, to consider these laws and to identify deficiencies that may need to be addressed lest, to quote words that are as apt today as they were when written over 120 years ago, ‘modern enterprise and invention … through invasions upon [their] privacy, [subject victims] to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.

The Need for an Understanding of Education Law Principles by School Principals

This chapter is aimed at setting the scene for the whole book. We commence by exploring an evidence based view that all school principals need some understanding of legal principles as they pertain to the educational setting. The arguments suggest that having a basic understanding of legal matters, should enable principals to be better equipped to recognise and more appropriately respond to a legal problem. We then explore developing trends of this topic over the past two to three decades by examining what legal matters have intersected with school authorities. A consideration of what level of legal understanding principals do possess is then mentioned. Data drawn from a recent research study undertaken on this issue followed by considerations and implications that stem from not having a basic level of literacy are also revealed