Complexity in data compliance

Compliance used to be an issue that only large enterprises sweated over, but with data becoming ever more critical to SMB operations it’s now everyone’s burden. Arnotts Lawyers, ALAN ARNOTT, provided a brief overview of some of the laws relevant to data retention faced by Australian SMBs. The following list is not legal advice but an overview intended to show how complex compliance laws are.

The time periods vary according to the sphere of law and the jurisdiction. For instance, in respect of litigation involving contractual disputes or the enforcement of contracts in New South Wales, the limitation period can be as much as 12 years where the action is founded on a deed (s16 Limitation Act 1969). For this reason alone, data should be retained for at least 12 years or even longer.

Another area of relevant law is the law prohibiting document destruction. The landmark case in Australia regarding the systematic destruction of a large number of records is the case of British American Tobacco v McCabe. In that case, the Court analysed the destruction of evidence relevant to the litigation. That case raised the bar as to the requirements of organisations to retain documents in 'anticipation of litigation'.

A third area of relevant law is the record maintenance and security obligations imposed on organisations pursuant to the Privacy Act. That legislation requires the securing of per-sonal data and accordingly, any storage system ultimately utilised must possess certain security features as required by the legislation.

Other laws which require the retention of data broadly include laws related to evidence, electronic transactions, tax, trade practices, corporations, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism, all of which impose different time limits and different obligations on organisations. Further, foreign legislation such as The Patriot Act (US) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (US) impose various obligations on multinational organisations which must also be accounted for.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice nor is it a substitute for legal advice. Alan Arnott is a technology and telecommunications lawyer with qualifications in computer science and law with Arnotts Lawyers in Sydney. He can be contacted by telephone on 02 9419 6355 or by email to alan@arnotts.net.au.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

ARN Staff

ARN

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Shopping.com

Latest News Articles

Resources

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest Jobs

Shopping.com

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?