Wattle Range Council was back in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on Tuesday in a hearing related to recent cyber attacks on its data base.
The council obtained an injunction from this court on Friday which was aimed to limit the dissemination of the hacked material by cyber criminals.
Justice Francois Kunc has presided over the hearings in Sydney and none was scheduled for yesterday (Wednesday).
A copy of Friday’s Supreme Court order
has been provided to The SE Voice by Wattle Range Council.
It is understood the council decided to pursue the matter in an interstate court as it had more experience in dealing with such matters.
Meanwhile, a Canberra-based cyber security lawyer has told The SE Voice of her reaction to the injunction obtained by Wattle Range Council.
Annie Haggar, Principal at cyber security law firm CyberGC said in a statement released to multiple newsrooms that injunctions were an important incident response tool.
“They can help to reduce the ‘stickybeaking’ that can occur when datasets are posted on the dark web from those who do not have a ‘need to know’,” Ms Haggar said.
“This can help to reduce the harm to the impacted organisation and its clients by this data being further accessed and distributed by media organisations.
“However, injunctions should not be used to stop the media reporting on breaches where it is a matter of public safety and enables a reduction in the harm caused to impacted individuals and organisations.
“In so many cases the media is the first-place people learn about a breach, and it is not until weeks later that impacted individuals are notified by the breached organisation, during which time they could have taken action to protect themselves.
“Media organisations also have a responsibility not to increase the harm caused by the breach through their reporting – including by providing links to or directing traffic to the stolen data.
“Their use needs to be balanced between restricting publication of information in the interests of the public good and safety versus a false sense of security against voyeurism of the stolen datasets that actually only deters already law-respecting parties.”
Ms Haggar has questioned the deterrence value of such injunctions.
“Unless and until action is taken to identify such criminal actors and enforce the injunction against them, the injunction is not likely to have much impact,” she said.
“Identification is difficult and enforcement can be costly.”
