Thank you for sharing a related article. The availability of technology should not necessarily entail its use in every context or situation. I agree with Commissioner Kind that its implementation in different establishments must align with community expectations and regulatory requirements. People should be more responsible and aware in handling technology, as a powerful technology in the wrong hands might cause chaos.

Thanks for sharing, Danica!
This is indeed an issue, and as Ingrid says, it’s only been exacerbated by digitization.
From a Contract Law perspective, it’s really troubling, because legally speaking, it’s no excuse to argue that you signed without reading or knowing the contents of an agreement. Legally, you will be bound regardless, unless you can demonstrate very exceptional levels of vulnerability or fraud etc.
And yes, the privacy issues across a number of areas right now are incredibly concerning. This one didn’t even involve any sign-ons/check ins: https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/bunnings-breached-australians-privacy-with-facial-recognition-tool

This is true, Dr. It appears that the only option available to a person is to click the “I understand and agree to the terms and conditions” button because without doing so, they will not be able to use the services, obtain the product, or use the program. The majority of the terms and conditions are so long that they are not particularly compelling to read. Given the regulations pertaining to data privacy and protection, the occurrence involving the light rail services is alarming. This episode reminded me of something that happened during the pandemic. As you entered establishments and government facilities, you had to write your name and phone number on a piece of paper that looked like an attendance sheet. This means that all of the names and numbers of those who had previously written may be seen by others. Months later, I started getting text messages from unknown numbers claiming that I have won prizes and others offering specific services, all in an obvious attempt to scam people. I had to block those numbers because I get three or four messages like that almost every day. It is frustrating when consent is not always exercised and the public has to worry about who might access the information they give.

Thanks, Danica, for sharing your thoughts! Just to add to the plain language debate: there is also the issue of time; many of us click “accept terms and conditions” on some app or website or software quite regularly without even reading. Even if we had time to read and process all these contracts, we don’t really have a choice other than to accept or forego the service – often something really basic. For instance, only today, here in Sydney we learned in the news that the light rail provider (public transport as an essential service) automatically collects personal data whenever you board a train unless you opt out; the opt-out option is hidden behind a QR code and on posters that most commuters can’t even see … all suggesting that the basic principle of informed consent is constantly violated in the tech space.

Now that I have read this article, it has expanded my knowledge that issues are not limited to complexity and technical jargons. There are other factors to take into account, such as non-native English speakers who have immigrated to English-speaking countries. I felt uneasy reading about the migrant’s experience of being exploited and denied the opportunity to learn English so that he would not know about his rights. Protecting people is one of the purposes of the law, but how can it accomplish this if the people do not understand it? Although it is reassuring to see that efforts are already being made to introduce the law in several LOTEs, much work remains. This is a wakeup call then to other researchers and forensic linguistic enthusiasts to continue working on this matter.

Hi Jill,
Thanks so much for sharing your experiences! I’m really curious to know, if you remember – how did you find out about Legal Aid in the first place?

Thanks for sharing this troubling example, Rul! Language could definitely play a factor in your example. Another potential problem is that there is very limited regulation of people outside Australia who claim to be migration agents. Migration Agents inside Australia must be registered and must comply with strict regulations, and face serious legal consequences if they don’t follow the rules, or if they claim to be an agent when they’re not. Unfortunately, this is not the case outside Australia, and remains a serious cause of increased vulnerability for the prospective migrant workers you mention.

I have luckily not been in a situation where I’ve been taken advantage of because I didn’t know a language well enough, but when I have at times ran into issues while communicating with colleagues in my second language.

My second language is Norwegian, and it is not available in the Legal Aid NSW website at all. It is not offered as a language to receive any help in.