Peg - The real concern is not for issues that are black and white, it is for the grey areas.
In particular, at what shade of grey things change from benevolent to malevolent. Wherever you draw that line, there are two insurmountable problems:
The first is that you will NEVER get universal agreement on where that line should be drawn.
The second is that there is every justifiable concern that the line will be moved - and moved towards the 'white' end of the scale.
As an extremely simple example, in NSW there is a road rule about traversing roundabouts, which states that you indicate you are leaving a roundabout by using your left blinker - because it is, technically, a left turn out of the roundabout.
Some roundabouts are 50 metres across and can have vegetation in the middle, obscuring full vision. Requiring people to indicate when they are exiting such a large roundabout is quite reasonable... it is almost identical to making a left turn into a side street - and you would get a large proportion of drivers who would concede that point.
Then you have roundabouts that have a small concrete mound in the middle of what otherwise could be a straghtforward cross-intersection. A lot of drivers would argue that using a blinker to indicate exiting such roundabouts as stupid - and I will accept that such an opinion is not without merit.
But - if we were to differentiate between big and small roundabouts for using or not using a blinker to exit, where do you draw the line? What happens if someone assesses the size of a roundabout as small, but it was classified as big? There are many issues on not only making a call, but on the assessment and interpretation.
In this case, the road rules stipulate one action for all situations, but if a second one was to be introduced, the above issues become real.
The same logic applies to private information. As it stands now, there are clear guidlines that apply - but if there is any opening up of access, then there will be a war of words, assessments and interpretations.
If all of the potential concerns could be identified and categorically addressed to the satisfaction of the voting public, then there might be some comfort - but the simple fact is, that such assurances are impossible. The determinations of this scenario and that situation will follow a path through the courts and develop over time in the same manner as legal precedents. There is just no possible way to write the bible on this and have it set in concrete.
.... and even if you did, somebody would want to Conroy change it.
