Access by Various artists

Read Post

Access: Privacy and the right to consent are all some people have left. But not for long.

91 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • steven crawford,

    Hang on, ACC isn't the crown, it's an insurance corporation that's owned by the crown.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Alright, so is it that people are afraid of shearing there details with a government department? Or the organisation that will be compelled to ask for them?

    We already give loads of personal details to government agency’s, almost without question. Will give our details to hospitals, schools and some people give personal information to Winz. Nobody’s been particularly concerned about that. Which leaves the question of what’s the real problem? Is it trust in the crown, or the small not for profit organisations having to ask questions they’d rather not.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    Seriously Steven? My concern is that for the first time all of the data that all of the government departments hold on potentially all New Zealanders is going to one big database where it can be analysed. And it isn't anonymous.
    It's all very well saying if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide and all that. I've done nothing wrong but I have valid concerns about the way Big Brother might utilise what it knows about me. I haven't consented to this. I, like most New Zealanders, have provided information from time to time to IRD, the education system, etc, which was requested for sensible reasons. I am not at all confident that the data will be used in a fair, transparent and sensible way by future governments. We have no checks and balances on our Government, it can do whatever it likes as long as it has a simple majority in Parliament.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 609 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Angela Hart,

    Seriously Steven? My concern is that for the first time all of the data that all of the government departments hold on potentially all New Zealanders is going to one big database where it can be analysed. And it isn’t anonymous.

    That's not entirely true.

    First, government departments are already legally capable of sharing date about you.

    Second, your confidential information will remain confidential.

    I know that's not reassuring:-(

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Angela Hart,

    We have no checks and balances on our Government, it can do whatever it likes as long as it has a simple majority in Parliament.

    Even in Australia, with the supposed checks and balances offered by its Federal upper house and multiple parliaments, a government agency has done a Paula Bennett and released confidential client information for political advantage.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4524 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Safely sharing information about sensitive matters like a person's health with other agencies relies not just on secure technology but on human ethics.

    Ethics are reinforced as part of health sector training and ongoing development and governance, but not necessarily in all public sector disciplines which may have conflicting drivers. Imagine the police accessing your health records, for instance.

    I have seen no sign of current government policy or practice on data-sharing addressing this.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear;
    Now bend while we check nothing’s hidden up there,
    And spread your cheeks wide, so that our probe can clear –
    If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.

    All the records we have we will happily share
    With police, or just with our mates over a beer.
    You want privacy? Where’d you get that idea?
    If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1751 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Ethics are reinforced as part of health sector training and ongoing development and governance, but not necessarily in all public sector disciplines which may have conflicting drivers. Imagine the police accessing your health records, for instance.

    That’s why I’m saying the problem with this new data collection plan isn’t just that the government is collecting it. It’s not a good idea to have small not for profit community organisations working as data collecting agents. I’m uncomfortable enough about the sorts of people who have collected sensitive health information about me on behalf of ACC.

    We don’t have to collect personal data at the small not for profit organisation that I’m a part of, for a year becouse it’s all trauma related. Women’s refuge should get the same waiver.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to steven crawford,

    First, government departments are already legally capable of sharing date about you.

    Some of them. But there has not previously been a significant centralised data gathering, crunching and analysis capability. There is now as part of the function of Statistics NZ. And alongside that there is an expectation that data will be fed to the monster machine. Technology is always Jekyll and Hyde, depending on how we choose to use or abuse it. There's absolutely nothing to prevent abuse by the authorities. Will they be able to resist temptation?

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 609 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Angela Hart,

    There’s absolutely nothing to prevent abuse by the authorities. Will they be able to resist temptation?

    There is the Privacy act. And that's not nothing.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to steven crawford,

    There is the Privacy act. And that's not nothing.

    Despite Paula Bennett being found to have breached the Privacy Act, any consequences were easily deflected by her minders.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4524 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Joe Wylie,

    Despite Paula Bennett being found to have breached the Privacy Act, any consequences were easily deflected by her minders.

    Yes, the Privacy act isn't that much of a deterrent.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to steven crawford,

    Attachment

    Yes, the Privacy act isn't that much of a deterrent.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4524 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to steven crawford,

    We don’t have to collect personal data at the small not for profit organisation that I’m a part of, for a year becouse it’s all trauma related. Women’s refuge should get the same waiver.

    The government wants to quieten unrest until after the election, that's all - and yes they've backed off on Refuge for the same time.

    Fundamentally, this govt's interest in trauma is how much it costs the state and how the private sector can benefit from it financially. Nothing humane or ethical about it.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Sacha,

    Fundamentally, this govt’s interest in trauma is how much it costs the state and how the private sector can benefit from it financially. Nothing humane or ethical about it.

    That’s correct, but I can’t think of anything the last Labour government did differently there. This government just hasn’t been particularly interested apart from asking ACC to pay the privet sector practitioners what they want, so that thay would agree to drop client surcharges, which in many cases required the client to ask Winz if they could help with that.

    I don’t know if there has ever been a lot of public trauma treatment. Prisons and acute mental health services spring to mind, and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres take on some of that work.

    And there’s a definite problem with data collecting. In an addiction treatment environment, it’s actually called evidence of crime. And that’s not an easy way to start a therapeutic relationship. The pragmatic solution would be to encourage dishonesty.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3865 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to steven crawford,

    I don’t know if there has ever been a lot of public trauma treatment.

    Never enough. One of the best things any government could invest in to improve the wellbeing of our citizens, communities and economy is free counselling and other treatment services - and I mean billions, not millions. The cost of trauma is so damn high in so many ways.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    I went to a talk on this new policy at the Fabians in Wellington by Brenda Pilott, formerly of MSD and the PSA. She now works in the community sector. She has OIA'd the official papers.

    I learnt many things: that there is no clear line between collecting this data and how it will lead to measurable better outcomes for anyone; that the Minister and the PM are personally pushing the implementation of this policy, and it has already appeared in contracts such as the Social Workers in Schools contract (which work with some of the most complex families in NZ, so who would be signing over consent for whom?). Apparently those using the services and thus handing over data will have to do it via the horrifically complicated RealMe system, and then someone (who is not clear) in MSD will check the veracity of the identity and data and send it back if there are any problems. If people agree to releasing some of their data but not the rest it is not clear what will happen.

    So there are a lot on unanswered questions. It is clear this is an ideological answer to an unclear problem by politicians in a hurry and without concerns for ethics. But we know it is likely a trap for those who are poorer as the private details of those who can afford to pay for such services will not be collected.

    The good news is that all political parties apart from National are opposed to this policy so there is a solution via voting on 23 September.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3110 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    there is no clear line between collecting this data and how it will lead to measurable better outcomes for anyone

    Because the intent is to reduce government spending over time, not necessarily to otherwise measurably help any real people.

    She said the same in a recent RNZ interview and I couldn't tell whether Ms Pilott is overlooking their motivations or if she's keeping her powder dry in some Thorndon-ish fashion.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace, in reply to Sacha,

    Yes she mentioned that too. She has an understated style in that public service way but she expressed quiet rage in her slides.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3110 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Sacha,

    the intent is to reduce government spending over time

    per capita. Remember that they also want to be able to announce increases in the total spend on a regular basis. Pedants talking about "real increases" and "per capita" are unpatriotic nitpickers who should shut up and let those who can, do. Unless they want to be done to, understand me?

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1032 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Another privacy breach does not inspire any confidence in MSD data security http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/328235/msd-'shut-down'-it-portal-over-privacy-breach

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3110 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    I don't know who has been building their software but I'd be demanding a refund for incompetence - and if internal staff are responsible, some firings might be instructive.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Sacha,

    If it's internal staff, firings at that level probably would not help, because the basic institutional problem in that case would be that those staff were asked to do things they're not trained for, on a ridiculous timeframe, with insufficient budget and insufficient direction in terms of project specifications -- because management were and are clueless about what they were asking for. And if you squint at it the right way, it's possible to see that kind of clusterfuck arising as a result of a genuine intention to preserve data confidentiality by keeping development in-house. (Oh, and of course to do it as cheaply as possible.)

    Even if it's an external contractor, the managerial incompetence is such that I'd bet that the specifications given were insufficient to actually hold the contractor to a performance clause.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1751 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to linger,

    because management were and are clueless about what they were asking for

    that's the level I was thinking of

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Privacy Commissioner says govt's social sector data-sharing compulsion is excessive and disproportionate.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19413 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.