RMIT Classification: Trusted
THIS ASSESSMENT TASK HAS TWO (2) QUESTIONS. DISCUSS THEM SEPARATELY!
LAW2558
ASSESSMENT TASK 3 COVER SHEET
I. ASSESSMENT DETAILS:
1. Course Code: LAW2558
2. Name:
3. Student ID:
4. Tutorial Class/Group:
5. Lecturer’s name:
II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FULL ASSESSMENT TASK THAT COMBINES QUESTION 1 and
QUESTION 2:
1) The deadline, referencing guide, marking rubric, and other detailed instructions for this assessment can be
found on the Assessment Task 3 page on Canvas.
2) This is an assessment, and you should work independently in producing the paper. Please be advised that
correspondence to lecturers directly or impliedly seeking sample answers of the assessment question or
asking for a review of a draft will not be attended.
3) Please understand that if you send an email to your lecturer outside the business hours, you should not
expect to receive a response until the next business day at the earliest.
4) The research essays must contain appropriate referencing following the Australian Guide to Legal Citation
(AGLC) (either the 3rd edition or the 4th edition is fine).
5) The recommended length of the whole assessment is 2500 words (+/-10%). Specifically, the
recommended length of the first essay is 1250 words (+/-10%). The recommended length of the second
essay is also 1250 words (+/- 10%; appendices, references, footnotes, etc. are not counted). The examiner
will stop reading once reaching this word limit. Issues covered in the excessive part will not be counted
and will be marked as "missing". You are going to lose credit for these missing issues. Thus, please write
precisely and succinctly to cover all relevant issues within the word limit.
Research Question 2 – Privacy and Emerging Technologies (20 marks)
Emerging technologies such as blockchain and AI increasingly challenge privacy protections. Choose two
real-world Australian privacy cases or investigations from the list below and conduct a legal analysis:
Clearview AI facial recognition – OAIC investigation (2021)
Medibank data breach (2022)
Optus data breach (2022)
Robodebt Royal Commission findings on automated decision-making (2023)
1
RMIT Classification: Trusted
Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Australian Federal Court action (2020–2023)
Blockchain transparency issues (academic studies on public transaction data exposure)
Task:
1. Summarise the facts of the two cases, including how privacy rights were impacted.
2. Identify and analyse the legal and ethical issues raised under Australian privacy law.
3. Critically assess whether current laws adequately protected individuals in these cases.
4. Provide two well-researched recommendations for improving privacy protections in similar future
situations.
Important: Your primary discussion must remain focused on the selected cases. You may draw on broader
legal or ethical considerations only if they are clearly linked to your analysis of the selected cases. You are not
permitted to abandon the cases and base your answer solely on general issues.
Important note:
This research assessment requires a demonstration of advanced legal research, analytical reasoning, and
critical evaluation skills in relation to real-world Australian cases on consumer protection in cryptocurrency
services and privacy in emerging technologies. AI tools cannot produce a satisfactory answer for the
following reasons:
1. AI cannot develop a clear, engaging, and innovative central argument that challenges the reader’s
thinking while remaining grounded in the specific facts, legal issues, and regulatory context of the
chosen cases. Crafting a compelling thesis requires deep understanding, creativity, and the ability to
connect legal principles to complex factual scenarios.
2. The rubric emphasises thoughtful, in-depth legal analysis and critical evaluation of existing laws and
regulatory responses. AI tools cannot engage meaningfully with these frameworks to produce new,
original insights tailored to the selected cases.
3. The rubric requires debating and synthesising different legal and scholarly perspectives to form a well-
reasoned argument. AI cannot meaningfully anticipate counterarguments, apply them to the facts of
actual cases, or provide strong, evidence-based rebuttals that enhance persuasiveness.
4. The rubric calls for exceptionally comprehensive legal research from diverse, high-quality sources
such as court judgments, regulatory reports, and academic commentary. AI cannot conduct
meticulous, targeted legal research, nor can it critically select, evaluate, and integrate sources with the
sophistication required. Critically, AI often fabricates academic sources or case citations that do not
exist.
5. AI cannot demonstrate mastery of LAW2558 course content or apply Australian legal frameworks in a
way that reflects a deep, contextual understanding of the material. The rubric values the thoughtful
application of course knowledge to real case analysis — something that requires human insight.
