Nomination for Australian Privacy Foundation ‘Big Brother Awards’ 2009 
BBA 2009 FINALIST 

Criteria for a BBA 2009 Award
The nominee must  be:
•	in or associated with Australia
•	responsible for a truly outstanding abuse (or defence) of privacy.
As appropriate for the particular Award Category the nominee should be a public or private sector individual or organization, a government program or initiative,  a private sector business activity.
The deed for which they are nominated should have at least partially been put into practice – they lose points for just planning or announcing something!  Further details about BBA2009 are available at http://www.privacy.org.au/bba/.

A.	Name of Nominee 

Telstra

B.	Award Category - Privacy Abuser for an “Orwell” Award 

Worst Corporate Invader – for a corporation that has shown a blatant disregard for privacy.

C.	Description
Award is for three specific circumstances in which Telstra has continued to show a disregard for privacy.

Telstra has special responsibilities to protect the privacy of Australian users of telecommunications due to its dominance in the market (particularly in rural areas) and its responsibility for providing land lines and telephone numbers. 

Telstra:
- Charges its customers a monthly fee of $2.93 per month (as at 7 October 2009) for providing a silent homeline, which means no publication of their name and address or phone number in the White Pages Services (hardcopy and electronic online and CD). 
- Charges its customers a fee ($5.48 for 1st month and $2.29 months 2-12) for a suppressed address listing, which means their name and telephone number are published, but not their address. 
- Contracted telemarketers breached the Do Not Call register.

A silent line is important for members of society for personal safety reasons, such as victims of abuse seeking to avoid offenders, as well as for those who seek privacy as a  personal right. The inclusion of this personal information in electronic format allows it to be integrated with other data – purposes for which it was not originally provided. This increases risk to personal safety and abuse of privacy.

By using contractors, and overseas call centres, Telstra used unethical practices to avoid Australian regulations. 

D.	Evidence of the Actions and References
Telstra pays $100k fine for privacy abuse, http://www.crn.com.au/News/153264,telstra-pays-100k-fine-for-privacy-abuse.aspx

www.telstra.com.au/customerterms/home_home.line.htm
APF Media Release: Telstra cashing in on your privacy (20 August 2009)

http://www.privacy.org.au/Media/MR-090820-Telstra.pdf

E.  	Why the Nominee Deserves the Award
Scope of the Impact
The impact of Telstra’s poor record in protecting privacy affects the privacy of telecommunications users throughout Australia.

Seriousness of the Impact
Telstra has responsibilities to protect the privacy of its clients and Australian citizens both as its clients and consumers of telecommunications services. 

Individuals who require a silent line should not have to pay extra to protect their privacy. The alternative, not use a landline, constitutes a form of ‘denial of service’. The silent line is required by some citizens to reduce their exposure to risk.

Telstra flaunted the regulation that allows people to opt out of receiving calls from telemarketers. This contravened the efficacy of the Do Not Call Register. 

F. 	Other Comments
This nomination form was emailed to Telstra for comment on 20 October for comment by 31 October 2009. No response was received from Telstra by the Coordinator of BBA2009 by 1 November 2009.