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.
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:-(
Luckily, we have journalists to clue us in a bit about that.
Actually, if they believed insurgents were going to be using it as a base of operations, that’s a prudent tactical decision.
That’s like saying it’s reasonable to bulldoze state houses, when theres a belief that criminals might live in them.
Destroying a village doesn’t make the problem go away. It just renders people homeless, which will create resentment. It would be a stupid tactical decision when you think beyond your own immediate interests.
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.
Hang on, ACC isn't the crown, it's an insurance corporation that's owned by the crown.
Yes, I was also shocked to see that in the eyes of the New Zealand courts, children under 13 years old have the emotional maturity to consent to having sex with there school teachers.
It makes trusting the crown with sensitive information hard to stomach. But that’s what’s required of anyone who makes an ACC sensitive claim.
My impression was that this point is set more preventatively in NZ than elsewhere because of the implied social contract with our ACC cover. In other words, the system will mend us with minimal cost to us but we have added responsibility to take extra care.
That’s a point. I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on public safety can have an adverse effect on public health. ACC functions as an insurance corporation. It’s only interested in its financial risk. Acc is in the business of reducing its exposure to accidental related claims, not health problems related to inactivity. ACC don’t have any reason to be concerned about cigarettes being dangerous, because apart from causing fires, thay mainly lead to health problems. ACC is only concerned about accidental health problems. Health problems that arise from inactivity – sitting around anxios about being injured, don’t happen by accident. But inactivity is one of the leading suckers of the public health purse, quality of life, and cause of death.
Paula Bennett became rattled and elected to take the low ground on Morning Report today by accusing Nicky Hager of being a “left wing conspiracy theorist”.
She seemed to back the truck up on that straight after saying it. She probably had an old set of mirrrors in place when her smoke puffed out.